Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are 940 articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs.


As of 28 September 2011: 141, all of which are in a deletion process. In other words, 0.
As of 23 August 2011: 997
As of 6 August 2011: 1,780
As of 2 July 2011: 3,623
As of 30 May 2011: 4,905
As of 17 April 2011: 7,328
As of 6 April 2011: 8,300
As of 3 March 2011: 9,999
As of 29 December 2010: 15,505
As of 24 May 2010: 29,995.
As of 22 April 2010: 36,879.
As of 3 April 2010: 38,742.
As of 22 March 2010: 39,802.
As of 5 March 2010: 40,942.
As of 22 February 2010: 42,231.
As of 25 January 2010, total was 49,096.
As of 4 January 2010, total was 52,760
(e)

Current talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

votes or percentages[edit]

Er number of !votes or percentages? What do people want? One the other or both? At present we have the header for the percentages and the numbers for the !votes.

I'm happy to provide one the other both on the same schedule that I am updating User:Peter cohen/BLP RFC stats. I.e. daily stats for around 1330 UCT generated typically a couple of hours later.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moan[edit]

I'm not sure why my comment is not tabled here - at 21:4 it received a good deal more support/comments than many listed here. Or hasn't the summary reached #88 (I think) yet? Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

With Risker's summary, I would suggest that the table is not unnecessary and can be removed. It's not just taking up too much space scrolling down to Phase II, where we actually want to move on to Fritzpoll (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of doing that, but was a bit reluctant. Perhaps move it to the talk page, or {{hat}} it? Some of it is useful reference. Rd232 talk 12:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hatted Fritzpoll (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just a continuation of phase I?[edit]

RE: Proposal by Jclemens: new CSD criterion for unsourced BLP

I see this as a continuation of phase I, is everyone just going to add their own proposals and everyone vote on it? Okip (formerly Ikip) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Phase I did narrow things down into three specific areas. I assume that other people will contribute their suggestions for the other two, and alternatives to my position on the third. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should name it without your name, simply put which proposal you are talking about. Okip (formerly Ikip) 02:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee's proposal is in the wrong subsection[edit]

It's not about handling new BLPs, but about the backlog. Pcap ping 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved another section and indented it, too, such that the table of contents is in line with the three questions as summarized by the Phase I closer. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor set up[edit]

I think this phase 2 set up has been done poorly. We needed to take the basic "consensus" from phase 1 and start there... I fear this RfC will simply become part 2 with no real advancement of any proposals.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least the conclusion on the PROD process is clear enough. This should be done, I think, at Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs, adapting that draft proposal in whatever way people want. There is some question of whether it should be standalone or part of WP:PROD; based on discussion at WT:PROD I think separate process will be preferred, but this can be discussed later (merging it as as a special part of PROD if desired). The rest of the discussion is clearly separate; it's how quickly to use the new process (and supplements), and what to do specifically about newly created unsourced BLPs. There is a focus and structure here that there wasn't in the first RFC (but this doesn't prevent someone creating a new section Other or Stuff We've Missed). Rd232 talk 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think BM refers to things like Jclemens' proposal which were not part of phase I but are new to this RFC (a proposal like that was rejected at WT:CSD before though). It might be a good idea to only allow proposals that are based on phase I proposals and which had consensus (i.e. no "delete them all" proposal since that was rejected with a huge majority). Currently the page looks like a mix of different ideas, some based on previous proposals, some new and some outsourced to other pages. I, too, have to say that I think that the page currently looks a bit chaotic and needs some order. Regards SoWhy 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said on the actual proposal page, the most recent CSD discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_37#Add_new_criteria_to_CSD applied to both new and old unsourced ("are totally unsourced for more than a year") articles, and so did MZMcBride's. Jclemmens' proposal is different because it applies only to new articles. That's why I support it, in constrast to the other ones. Pcap ping 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD proposal could be moved to WT:CSD. At least it would be out of the way then; just leave a link here. Rd232 talk 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need a centralized discussion for all the alternatives for dealing with new articles, so the best one can be selected. This is one of the recommendations resulting from phase I. Pcap ping 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My original table (collapsed but expanded yesterday) covered all of the major ideas, and the majority of the minor ones of the First phase of the RFC. The two largest proposals seemed to keep the status quo, and Prod. Instead of voting on these two radically different proposals, maybe their is a middle ground we can all agree upon? that is why Coffee's proposal, which maybe still has some kinks in it, is promising. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this is that three unanswered questions were left over: How to formulate the BLP-PROD process, what to do with the backlog, and what to do with new unsourced BLPs. I addressed my proposal only to the third of those questions, since I don't have a position I feel like championing for the other two. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is basically what I would like to see... rather than opening up a new array of issues to revote on and have everybody creating new proposals, I think we should set up different area based upon the issues which garnered support initially. For example, IMHO, I see two main areas where consensus has evolved:
Issue 1: In round one of this RfC, while there is a strong component of the community opposed to wholesale deletions of unsourced BLPs, there was a general agreement that there should be some sort of clean up of unsourced BLPs. Failure to clean up these BLPs may lead to their deletion. As such, the question becomes how we proceed with this clean up? Who should be notified? How? What time frame do we use when deleting the old unsourced BLPs? How do we prioritize these old unsourced BLPs? How do we identify the unsourced BLPs? What do we do with older unsourced BLPs not identified during the clean up phase? What articles fall under this umbrella (E.g. not all BLPs are biographies and the non-biographies are likely to be overlooked or identified later.)
Issue 2: In round two of this RfC, there was a clear consensus that some sort of BLP-PROD mechanism be developed. There was also a clear indicator that this BLP-PROD should not be used as an end-around to justify speedy deletions of unsourced BLPs. This leads to several issues needing to be discussed: A) Who can and under what circumstances can a BLP-PROD be added/removed? B) How long we we leave a BLP-PROD on an article? C) How does the creation of BLP-PROD related to Issue 1 (IMO it would be for new articles or older articles identified after the clean up phase has ended.)
There may be other areas, but I think those are the two main umbrellas that have been identified where we should continue working. I would almost propose creating two separate children RFCs to address each of the major umbrellas. The current proposal just feels like beaucracy that is going to simply result in 200 more position statements, but not advancing any concrete conclusions. While some may oppose BLP-PROD and a wholesale clean up, there does seem to be a consensus to do so and this does appear to be the direction ArbCOM, Jimbo Wales and WMF want the project to head. I'd rather we as a community resolve the issue in a meaningful manner rather than await a dictate from on high.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to make the toc solution- rather than user-oriented to start with. If one cannot summarize their proposal in the toc, then it's probably yet another complex one like the first phase had too many of. The "new BLPs" subsection looks good: three orthogonal proposals. The "backlog" section needs work from the authors of the proposals to change the section titles to be more explicit. Pcap ping 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the backlog, the first questions to ask are: should we clean up the backlog?; and how long should we allow ourselves to do this?. The first I think has been answered - most feel that it should be cleaned up. The second is important, as it feeds into what methods we should use. If we can agree on a timescale, then we are one step closer to a solution. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need any punitive measures to source these articles, which unfortunately been the focus of many editors here: source this by this date or else. It is short-sighted to see these 45,000 unreferenced articles as suspect simply because they are unsourced. The vast, vast majority of these articles have valid information, they were created by good faith contributors, and the only crime is they are unsourced.

Instead, we should consider incentives to source these articles, to paraphrase User:The-Pope (whose idea was #44 in phase I): Make it known that this is the site's current main priority...get WolterBot to change the order of the cleanup list to highlight what are the real problem areas, and which ones are "nice-to-haves" (i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style [problems]).

  • Get ALL of the projects on board. Get a bot...to auto-generate the lists based on the intersection of Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:WikiProject XYZ articles. [The bot will need to be smart because] the project [categories] are on the talk pages, but the unreferenced BLPs are on the main pages. [I personally] can do it for a project at a time using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, so it [is possible]. Then create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Unreferenced BLPs page for EVERY project. Update the list daily.
  • Hold a competition to see who can zero their list the quickest - winner gets money/fame/links on the main page for a month/etc.
  • Create a hall of fame for most removed each week.
  • ALL wikiprojects have a User:WolterBot page added.

Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 13:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP PROD tag[edit]

Editors have expressed their concerns about a PROD tag being too bitey to new users. Lets see if we can work together to make one which is less bitey that most of us can agree upon. (more) Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis need to be on adding sources, and we should provide links so that it's a bit easier to find them. We have to mention deletion as the result of ignoring the tag, but that it not a foregone conclusion. We should also emphasize that the tag does not reflect any perceived lack of notability of the subject. I saw someone had produced a tag somewhere. I'll try and find it. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think we'll be able to work this out. No one wants the tag to be bitey, and obviously we need to include links to pages that help with sourcing while pointing out that the article will eventually be deleted if it isn't sourced. It might be nice to set up a central page somewhere (maybe there's one already) where article creators who are new contributors could go ask for help and which would be patrolled by experienced editors, and include the link to that page in our standard message. I actually think we can word the tag such that we draw in more new users to editing than we push away. A lot of people create one or two articles and then never come back and/or never figure out how article sourcing and other Wikiways really work, simply because no one ever "talks" to them beyond a boilerplate "welcome" message. But if we're saying "hey, thanks for this, but you need to fix this up a bit and here's how," we might end up with a chunk of those folks becoming more familiar with our policies (because they have to in order for their article to stay) and deciding to stick around. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existing prod tag:

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. Please do not add the {{hangon}} tag to challenge a proposed deletion unless the article has also been nominated for speedy deletion.
The article may be deleted without further notice since this message has remained in place for seven days.
This template was added
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added.

Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously suggest that any proposals for the wording of a PROD tag are premature and a waste of time until a consensus has been reached about PRODding in general for BLPs. This message is a late addition to this thread,here but see how time is still being wasted on this PROD template on 6 march already...--Kudpung (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other people don't think it's premature, so they now have their sandbox here: WT:BLP PROD TPL. --Kudpung (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word from the forgotten majority[edit]

Thank you for slowing down the mass deletion process. In the search for the ultimate PROD mechanism, please spare a thought for the 76% to 93% of respondents who support each of the following statements:

  • The real problem is unsourced contentious info, not unreferenced articles. The proposal will do nothing or little to the real problem, and at the same time incur tremendous costs.
  • Existence of a person is not, however, controversial nor contentious. WP has policies for deleting articles lacking notability, and no Draconian policy of automatic article deletion should pre-empt the orderly functioning of processes already existing.
  • The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC.
  • The risk reduced--and let's be clear, there certainly will be some--is insufficient to justify the widespread deletion of accurate, useful, and innocuous information, sourced or not, and ultimately damages Wikipedia without helping BLP vandalism subjects.
  • For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless.

Source: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II#Table summary; click [show]. Certes (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As a member of that majority, I agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly agree. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongly agree. I hope this doesn't get lost in the massive amount of discussion. Jogurney (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What they said (although I was away and didn't participate in Phase 1). Maurreen (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongly agree Gee, this seems to be saying what I've been saying all along.Trackinfo (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yep.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oh yeah·Maunus·ƛ· 08:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Obvious and well said Hobit (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. +1 Carrite (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So has anyone done any actual article editing?[edit]

Or has everyone just spent their time saying support or oppose for the nth time? There's no need to point out the irony of me posting this instead of using the time to source a BLP... Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good question, even if it was rhetorical, so here's one answer. I was never the most prolific editor, but I've hardly contributed anything to article space since this matter arose. This isn't a protest or an attempt to punish anyone; I simply don't feel like doing work which may vanish. If the deletions restart, I'll probably continue to edit but am unlikely to work on BLPs again. I genuinely wish you well in finding other contributors to fill the gap. Certes (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The longest lists of people's actual edits leading to removal of BLPunsourced tags are on User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing. There are some impressive counts there. My own 21 (so far) "rescues" are not listed. Yes, some people do put their keyboards where their mouths are. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued to handle PRODs, where >50% are BLP-relevant, through the established processes while all this hoopla goes on. I've only ever really worked on one BLP, myself. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been involved with BLPs before, but the discussion has prompted me to improve a few, usually by using already-present External Links to provide inline references where this is possible. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on about 20 or so I wouldn't have otherwise touched. Mostly just removing incorrect tags, but a handful were sourced. Hobit (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff! I've worked on approx. 200 over the last month. This really needs a Wiki-wide project task force banner, just like Jimbo's cash-strapped one of recent times. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I micromanage a Wikipedia project which because of its very nature has a lot of bios and BLPs. When i come across any that are unreferenced , I always try to find a source, failing which I tag it {{noref}} and send a personal message to the creator and/or major contributors. If that doesn't work after a while, and if it's full of unsourced real crap I will probably PROD it and almost certainly reduce it to a stub or let it get deleted depending on its notability. I try to apply common sense, which bots can't do, although even common sense is entirely subjective.--Kudpung (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to meaningfully contribute to such a large discussion[edit]

A day or two ago, I noticed the page and read over most of it; only a few subsections existed then. I said to myself that I would add my own thoughts and comments to phase II just as I had done to phase I. But the page quickly became very excessive, and now I shamelessly declare tl;dr.

How can I meaningfully contribute to a conversation this huge? I don't have the time to read half of the proposals, let alone the comments on them...it's chaotic. There's got to be a better way.

I propose we could create some sort of survey. Example question: What do you feel is the general effect of unreferenced content (which may or may not be correct) in a BLP on Wikipedia? To simplify the aggregation of results, you could assign a number to the answers, representing a spectrum from 1 "very useful" to 5 "meh" to 10 "very harmful". We might even include a question like How supportive of a decision made by the Wikimedia foundation would you be (even if you disagree with the decision)? Answer spectrum: 1 "would completely oppose" to 5 "would bite my tongue" to 10 "would do anything the WMF says".

There could be many (less tl;dr) ways to respond to the survey: for example, creating a special subpage in your userspace to post your responses, or using a special userbox.

Simplifying the proposal/response to merely requesting that users identify where their opinion lies on a scale from 1 to 10 on various key points of this discussion (Do you oppose [1] or support [10] the idea of mass-deletion? Mass prodding? Current minimum quality standards on WP?) will lead to further surveys that are more specific and near implementation level. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has potential. Maurreen (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great way to encourage more editors to express an opinion without having to digest pages of debate. A clear winner as long as the survey reaches the right audience. Certes (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that the length and volume of comments now impedes their usefulness, too hard to digest. --Mdukas (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint all along, and Maurreen has since bailed out.--Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template developers, if they wish to risk wasting their time by preemting a consensus in their favour, now have their sandbox here: WT:BLP PROD TPL. --Kudpung (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table uncollapsed and restored[edit]

I created this subpage, with the table originally. We agreed to this phase II on a few conditions for closing phase I, which have been ignored:

Nowhere in this conversation was there any discussion about the closing administrator declaring consensus. The agreed upon idea to start phase II was that all major ideas would be summarized. The major ideas were jerochman's idea, and working within the already existing framewor (163, right after MZMcBride's draconian idea). After briefly acknowledging the working within already existing frameworks, the closing administrator declared consensus:

"there is a surprisingly clear consensus that some form of BLP-PROD is the preferred method of addressing unsourced BLPs."

He then gave three options. None of which addressed working within the already existing framework.

The same day, Kevin posted Jerochman's proposal at the top of the three choices.[1] No other proposal was posted despite the understanding that this would be a summary of ideas.

Another editor collapsed all of the opinions, so only Jerochman's proposal was visible.

Four times over the past 5 days I have requested on the main RFC talk page that the phase II page be moved to the original page, so editors who have this on their talk page can comment, and we can get a wider consensus. I have received no response.[2]

I suggest:

  1. We start Phase III immediately, scraping Phase II because of the built in bias in its design and the lack of alternatives to Jerochman's proposal. In phase III we have at least the major proposals neutrally proposed and discussed.
  2. Phase III goes on the main page.
  3. All editors are contacted who commented before.

I want to go into other ways this survey was skewed, including the creator of this RFC, MZMcBride off wikicommunity site that was created to influence Biographies of Living People, but much of this is assumptions and based on academic work on how wikipedia runs, which will simply be used as a hole to attack my entire comment. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning for Phase 3[edit]

Instead of closing Phase 2 and the related forks immediately, as Okip suggests above, I'm thinking we should plan now for Phase 3.

A main purpose of Phase 3 should be, as Okip points out, the consolidation of the forks. Phase 3 should also use some version of B's idea above, to get a general gauge of opinion on the underlying issues. I think it's wise to determine support or not for various principles (the "why") before deciding implementation (the "how").

For instance, each section should be labeled essentially by topic. Each main point should be a one-sentence statement. Under each would be sections for just support, oppose and neutral !votes, with comments separated somehow.

Ideally, the sections might be arranged on a spectrum. Maurreen (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro material might include links to background material including the table from Phase 1.

Yeah. Let's do that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point to contributing?[edit]

As with so much of the rest of Wikipedia, this discussion has turned into another popularity contest among the nerd oligarchy which rules the land. Rather than any discussion of the ethical and legal basis for a decision (Kantian ethics dictate a solution most here will find unpalatable), people are blinded to everything but which of the narrow selection of views should be chosen from among Wikipedia's bourgeoisie with no regard for, you know, reality. The amount of Wikipedia traffic dedicated to bureaucracy has been increasing year by year, and the number of contributing editors has been imploding rapidly. Your project is sliding into Jimbo Wales' navel. As near as I can figure it, there is no reason for anyone to help you construct your BLP wikiality unless they want to score points with whichever Wikipedia mandarin's views they're supporting. SmashTheState (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think so. SmashTheState (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I doubt many will care if the policies are obeyed as long as the bowing and scraping and 21-gun salute is there. It's pretty sad but you know a lot of brash admins who talk about cracking down on POV-pushers only crack down on those who talk back to them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in my view (and I don't doubt many will disagree), it comes down to a collective enforcement of MPOV (My Point Of View) by a zealous, groupthink-blinkered bunch of people who largely appear from contribs to care more about politics/management than the encyclopaedia itself. Orderinchaos 00:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real question, to me, is why WP continues to use this rather bizarre form of mutant consensus decision-making. Consensus decision-making works well in a small group setting, but this blabathon model is highly inefficient and ultimately reduces itself to clique control ("the consensus is what I say it is."). Vest voting rights at the 100 edit mark and vote by mail, QED.
As for the Biographies of Living People brou-ha-ha — much ado about nothing. Most of the dreaded "unsourced biographies of living people" that I've bumped into are (a) sports star stubs that are improperly footnoted; (b) pop culture stubs that are improperly footnoted. I don't see any of this as a big problem or big menace, there are already rules in place regarding Biographies of Living People. This whole thing, as Comrade Smash intimates, is likely a group-think endeavor to anticipate the dearest desires of Supremo 1, 2, or 3... There's nothing to see here, folks, get back to work! Carrite (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing category-lists of living people and surname set index pages[edit]

See here for a proposal concerning ways to mine the "living people" category in an effort to keep surname set index (similar to disambiguation) pages up-to-date. I mention it here, because it is entirely possible that the absence of such people from such surname set indexes is an indication of their "notability". If someone is not that notable, and their article gets little attention, they often end up not being added to such lists, because no-one really bothers. Possibly something to think about in the overall thinking of what articles to keep and which ones not to keep. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's a function of interest among people presently at Wikipedia who know how to deal with disam and categories, not RW notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I do think that articles that are not linked to very much, or not very well integrated into the encyclopedia are somewhat neglected, and can be considered obscure, and that can lead to thoughts of "should they really have an article". It all comes back to maintainability. Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another Proposal for solving the problem[edit]

As an estimate there are still 25,000 BLP articles claimed to be unsourced. As a very rough estimate, we have devoted 100,000 words to discussing how to set up a system for sourcing them. I therefore propose that everyone who has contributed to these discussions solve the problem in proportion to their concern about the problem: for every 4 words, take care of one article, by either sourcing or getting consensus for deletion after trying to source.. Anyone who wants to participate in further discussion of how others should do the work, must first finish their quota. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I agree. I've... [run out of words, so I have to go and source some more]. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woot.--Father Goose (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Contest for referencing BLPs that don.27t have refs[edit]

What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving unfavorable facts[edit]

In October 2009, arbitrator Casliber told the arbitration committee about a "secret mailing list" of around 24 editors, run by now dysoped administrator MZMcBride. To my knowledge, the arbitration committee did nothing at the time about this "secret mailing list", and continue to state they can do nothing about this "secret mailing list".

In December, Casliber went public with MZMcBride's "secret mailing list"[3]

MZMcBride moved the "secret mailing list" post, to another less frequented page.[4]

I am grateful that [5 ignored requests], Administrator Fram (who was completely uninvolved before in those request) took the initiative and in good faith rearranged the RFC, making this RFC the main RFC. Unfortunately, Fram moved a very active discussion about whether MZMcBride's "secret mailing list" had a part in shaping this RFC, who exactly these 24 editors are, and if there has been any meat puppetry, collusion, and canvassing in this RFC. I feel "The context strongly suggests" that there is, other editors do not, and I would like to explore why. Again Fram acted in good faith.

For this reason I am moving this active section here. I think it was wrong for MZMcBride to move the "secret mailing list" thread and I think it was not in the communities best interest to move this extremely active thread.

Okip BLP Contest 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Close this manufactured RFC immediately[edit]

I have asked 5 times for Phase II to be returned to Phase I, with no response, except for Kevin. I asked the closing administrator personally to move phase II to Phase I, with no response. As I explained on the phase II talk page, and Mr.Z-man acknowledges,[5][1] only one position was advocated in Phase II.

The end result of phase II is too slow down wider community discussion, so that Jerochman's proposal will be adopted, despite serious and growing opposition. The actual intention is irrelevant.

This RFC has been marred by severe corruption, severe rule breaking, "utter contempt" for "community consensus" and dirty tricks from its inception, which should shock the conscience of any wikipedian. The creator of this Request for Comment, MZMcBride, just lost his administrator privileges, for running a "secret mailing list" "dedicated to tightening up BLP practices": Per: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

In January 2010, MZMcBride provided information, derived from special access to Wikimedia Foundation servers, to a banned user ("K."), knowing that K. intended to use the data to vandalize biographies of living people on the English Wikipedia. These are the circumstances:

(A) In a discussion on another website, MZMcBride announced that he had created a list of unwatched BLP articles. In the same discussion, K. stated that Wikipedia lacks the ability to sufficiently protect the accuracy and integrity of BLPs and, to demonstrate this, K. proposed a "breaching experiment".
(B) K. publicly asked MZMcBride for a list of unwatched BLPs for this "experiment". In response, MZMcBride publicly agreed to give a list to K. and subsequently supplied a list of twenty articles.
(C) MZMcBride gave this list to K. knowing that K. would use the articles for his "breaching experiment" involving BLPs. The context strongly suggests that K. would subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to then; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results. According to K., even as MZMcBride handed over the list to him, MZMcBride expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion.
(D) MZMcBride gave this list to K. knowing that (i) Wikipedia biographies come high, if not highest, in search engine results for living people and (ii) the introduction of inaccurate information into these articles—even if done by K. inconspicuously and without malice—could have unpredictable real life consequences.
(E) MZMcBride gave this list to K. despite knowing, or at least reasonably suspecting, that (i) K. intended to use it to edit the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets and that (ii) K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorised to edit the English Wikipedia for any purpose at all.
(F) After MZMcBride gave the list to K., K. under various usernames vandalised the BLP articles on it.
(G) After questions were raised about the propriety of this "breaching experiment" and his role in it, MZMcBride continued for several days to defend his conduct and objected to any attempt to terminate the "experiment". MZMcBride ultimately posted a list of the unsourced BLPs he had identified to K. after an arbitrator requested on his talkpage that he do so, at which point various examples of vandalism were reverted.
(H) MZMcBride may have subjectively believed that allowing BLPs to be vandalized by K. in the "breaching experiment" would serve the greater good in drawing attention to the vulnerability of lightly watched, unsourced BLPs to vandalism, an issue about which MZMcBride had expressed very legitimate concerns in the past. Nonetheless, we have little difficulty in concluding that his conduct in this matter fell well short of the standards expected of an administrator.
Passed 12 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith edits and libelous material in BLPs are uncommon and the majority of unreferenced BLPs are done in good faith. So MZMBcBride manufactured this crisis on his "secret mailing list" by "subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to then; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results". We as a community SHOULD NOT reward editors who actively take part in destroying Wikipedia.

If Kevin, Lar, Coffee, and Scott MacDonald, the editors who deleted hundreds of articles and manufactured this crisis care to comment, I ask, as I have asked before, are you a member of MZMBcBride "secret mailing list"? If I recall there were about 25-30 members, are you one of those members?

For these reasons I ask that a brave administrator close this request for comment. I would put this to a !vote, but MZMBride's "secret mailing list", have made a complete mockery of our consensus building system.

Please close this RFC now. Okip BLP Contest 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okip BLP Contest 04:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it said that there were 25+ members? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I *think* what the OP was referring to was this. No comment on the rest of the section right now.  –Whitehorse1 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no relationship at all between the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee to the community to hold this RFC and anything you have stated above, Okip. Further, there is no reasonable correlation between the Arbitration Committee case involving MZMcBride and the participation of 470+ Wikipedians in this discussion. This RFC is not in any way a "reward" for MZMcBride, whose opinion did not receive the consensus support of the community. Risker (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Close this thread immediately. Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second the motion to table this thread. harej 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: The initiator of this RFC has a "secret mailing list" "dedicated to tightening up BLP practices". MZMcBride recruited a blocked editor to conduct a breaching experiment to "vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information" MZMcBride "secret mailing list", if I recall, has 25-30 members. Coffee, whose wheel warring led up to this RFC, has defended this "secret mailing list", and has not responded on whether he was a member, he is also the administrator who protected this RFC.
Risker, as far as Phase II, even Mr.Z-man acknowledges only one position was advocated in Phase II. As the administrator who closed this RFC, why was only one position advocated, in complete contradiction to the reasons agreed upon to close this RFC? Okip BLP Contest 05:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not Risker, but you need to present proof of MZ stating or somebody confirming that there is some sort of sekrit mailing list. I followed the arbcom case, and there was no mention of a mailing list, and I haven't seen evidence elsewhere. Personally, I feel like the phrase "put up or shut up" might be appropriate now, since you've stated this alleged mailing list as if it were fact, several times on this page. Killiondude (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Former arbitrator Casliber: "In October while I was told about this website as a place where concerned editors were discussing what to do about BLPs, and that the board was private and pseudonyms were being used, and that there were a number of people using it (24?)." The website is Sofixit.org, which was replaced with a highly offensive porn photo when former arbitrator Casliber went public in December, and is now labeled as a forum "For discussing the sensitive issues regarding Wikipedia's biographies of living people."[6] Okip BLP Contest 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. You're confusing two terms: mailing list and message board. It is starting to make more sense, but it's still not quite clear why you think that an RFC with over 470 distinct editors discussing a topic should be completely ignored. It's unfathomable. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made assumptions that the mailing list does not exist, you rudely tell me to "put up or shut up" and when I show you incontrovertibly that the mailing list does exist, you change the focus of the discussion. Does "put up or shut up" apply to the editor who was shown to be completely wrong? Okip BLP Contest 08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a secret mailing list doesn't exist is probably the default choice. Also, the thing Casliber brought up isn't a mailing list, it is a message board (allegedly). I'm not changing the topic, I'm agreeing with Risker in that "there is no relationship at all between the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee to the community to hold this RFC and anything you have stated above", as far as I can tell. Killiondude (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, yes it was a message board, but viewing was/is prohibited unless one is a member, hence it functions as a private mailing list although it is/was structured asa message board. Anyway, I agree with sentiment elsewhere about trying to look forward rather than backwards and moving on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okip, do not continue to use my comment in support of your claims. You are taking it of context, and you know that. Please remove your reference to my comment, as I do not agree with you except on a purely factual basis. I agreed that phase 2 only covered one aspect, but I disagreed that it was a problem and argued that continuing the huge number of discussions in phase one would not have been helpful. Your comments here are beyond the pale. You have yet to address my reply above, where I pointed out a blatant lie in your attack on me. You are now alleging, based on no evidence that MZM and 25 other users are using sockpuppets to vandalize BLPs. How you got from "using a forum to discuss BLPs" to "creating sockpuppets to vandalize" I have no idea, but you have yet to present any evidence to back up your major claims. The incident referred to on the Arbitration case was a completely different situation. The forum being referred to there was Wikipedia Review, not the BLP forum. And MZM did not vandalize any BLPs himself. Only one banned user did, on a handful of articles. You have taken a few isolated incidents, mixed them together, blown it out of proportion,and concocted a conspiracy theory. Somehow you've turned "a forum to discuss BLP", "a banned user vandalizing a handful of BLPs," and "MZM starting an RFC" into "25 users on a secret mailing list are using sockpuppets to vandalize BLPs to manufacture a crisis and subvert consensus." You've basically turned 3 things that are true into 1 thing that is completely false. Giving a banned user a list of articles did not happen on a secret BLP forum, it happened on a public WR forum. The banned user's vandalism was minor, limited, and I believe in most cases was self-reverted. You're accusing several long-standing editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism. Please either present real evidence or retract your claims. Mr.Z-man 06:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote:
  • only one position is advocated - Yes, because simply starting all the discussions over again would have been so productive. I fail to see how that isn't significantly different from any other targeted RFC, except that we're calling it "Phase 2" instead of starting a new RFC. Nothing is stopping people from starting their own RFC if they disagree with this one.
Per above: "I agreed that phase 2 only covered one aspect" You are welcome to add "but", I now quoted you fully in context. I can post the entire section here if you wish.
RE: "The banned user's vandalism was minor, limited, and I believe in most cases was self-reverted."
Why do you continue to defend desyped MZMcBride who "gave this list to [a banned user] knowing that...the introduction of inaccurate information into these articles—even if done by K. inconspicuously and without malice—could have unpredictable real life consequences"?
How do you reconcile your continued fervent defense of MZMcBride, who helped introduce "inaccurate information" with your continued concern about "inaccurate information" (what you support calling "sewers") on Wikipedia? Are you a member of this "secret mailing list"?Okip BLP Contest 06:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're only quoting me fully in context right here; you're still using my comment out of context as something in support of your position, when it is most definitely not. Why do you continue to throw about allegations, attacks, and lies rather than reasoned arguments and evidence? I'm not defending MZM except against the attacks that are purely a figment of your imagination. Yes, I'm well aware that he provided a banned user with a list of unwatched BLPs. However, you have yet to present evidence that this "secret mailing list" is coordinating anything, let alone "manufacturing" a crisis. Perhaps you had your head in the sand until people started suggesting deleting unsourced BLPs, but BLPs have been a problem on Wikipedia for years. The instance of a banned user vandalizing 10 or so BLPs had little to no impact on the RFC (see Risker's comment above). OTRS gets around that many complaints about BLPs every day. Mr.Z-man 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs have been a problem on Wikipedia for years?
1. Does this include edits done by blocked users in "breached experiments"? Would you consider these a "problem"? How do you reconcile your defense of MZMcBride, who helped introduce "inaccurate information" with your continued concern about "inaccurate information" (what you support calling "sewers") on Wikipedia?
"OTRS gets around that many complaints about BLPs every day."
2. Do any of these complaints include the "breached experiments" which you are justifying?
Since you seem to know so much about what happened around the "secret mailing list", are you a member of this "secret mailing list"? Okip BLP Contest 08:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there have been no complaints regarding the breaching experiment. I am not justifying anything and like all the lies you are telling here, you know that. All that I'm saying is that MZM did not create any sockpuppets, the vandalism done was short-lived and minor, it had no bearing on the creation of this RFC (how many people other than yourself have mentioned it in their proposals and comments - outside of replies to you?) and almost all of the "facts" that you are claiming are false.
Where have I expressed any knowledge of the "secret mailing list"? All I did was clarify somethings that happened elsewhere (the interaction between MZM and a banned user took place on a widely known public forum, not a secret mailing list as you continue to allege), which if you had spent 10 minutes reading over the Arb case you keep quoting, you would already know. Is it really that difficult for you to make a comment that does not contain some sort of attack or allegation? Mr.Z-man 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE premature closure and Okip's attempt to derail a productive RFC by invoking political smear campaigns against a fellow editor. This is pure nonsense. Okip has clearly and obviously been against doing anything whatsoever, except letting things be as they were before any of this discussion started. The reason 10,000 BLPs have been improved is BECAUSE of this RFC. The RFC needs to continue and reach its natural end, not be gridlocked by political mud slinging. I see no reason to stop a community discussion based on the perceived missteps of one person. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user:Okip:

Your posts about MZMcBride[edit]

Your constant posts about how MZMcBride manufactured this BLP crisis and is now trying to deceive the entire community into doing something or another is bordering on harassment. Please stop. NW (Talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is deeply troubling that established editors, who are held up as role models for the community, continue to defend the indefensible,

"MZMcBride gave this list to K. knowing that...the introduction of inaccurate information into these articles—even if done by K. inconspicuously and without malice—could have unpredictable real life consequences".

The creator of this RFC is directly responsible for the very violations this manufactured RFC was supposed to stop.

Lets keep the comments here please, all comments about this on my talk page will be subsequently moved here. Okip BLP Contest 06:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okip, this motion is not going to succeed, and pursuing it is not going produce anything useful. Yes, MZMcBride has acted in a grossly inappropriate manner in relation to BLPs, but you're not going to get this RfC invalidated on that basis. Refocus on some initiative that has a chance of improving the situation.--Father Goose (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The silly drama needs to stop. Ridernyc (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move forward, no back tracking, no delaying action. MZMcBride ArbCom case is even anterior to all the unsourced BLP discussion and wrestling. Okip do you really want a compromise or you simply do not want one rejecting the negotiation failure and blame to the other side. There is a reality check: Unsourced BLP issue will be resolved once for all and this is not a negotiable change. You can oppose the change and get ditched on the road side or you can contribute to the discussion on how the change will occur in other words ride the wind of change. I'm sick of the Wikipedia indecisiveness and the "I don't want the other side winning" mentality. A real good compromise is everyone and Wikipedia winning but at this rate no one winning and Wikipedia losing is still a possible outcome. --KrebMarkt 10:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that strong statements like "this is not a negotiable change", are usually always made when negotiations are about to collapse.
You can't reach consensus when editors repeatably show they have "utter contempt" for "community consensus". As Mr.Z-man acknowledges, only one position was advocated in step II. Those of us who were ignored in Step II, a good portion of the 470, simply want a fair process. If this is really something you want too, I would suggest giving less ultimatums, and focus more on why so many editors are so frustrated at what is happening here.
If there really was community support for what you are advocating KrebMarkt, there would have been no need for "breach experiments" (vandalism); the deletion of hundreds of articles, and stopping the RFC early to advocate one position. Okip BLP Contest 11:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly all i can do is laughing out of bitterness, you should change your set of arguments because it's turning into a scratched disk playing always the same tune Ad nauseam. The ArbCom motion was adamant on the point that the unsourced BLP issue must be resolved and all you read was the part related to editors who started the whole party. The first RFC was just a warm up round with both side assessing the other side strength and the result is both side are evenly matched. So we are at negotiating for real and this time ArbCom will pick the solutions that will solve the issue and gathered the most support. You can exclude yourself from that process but that will not stop it. As a negotiator, you are wasting the strength represented by the overwhelming consensus to not have unsourced BLP nuked. Use it the wrestle a good compromise and not for entrenchment tactic. The whole negotiation can continue without you and against you. Your support and participation is not mandatory to reach a good compromise. --KrebMarkt 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about this by Fritzpoll[edit]

A number of points need to be clarified here:

  1. Actions perpetrated by MZMcBride did not lead to this RfC - the motion regarding mass deletions by Kevin, Scott MacDonald and others did.
  2. MZMcBride has not been admonished for "running a secret mailing list" or even from a secret forum - I should know, I read the publicly made statements! This a misrepresentation that is categorically false.
  3. The outcome of the MZMcBride motion has no bearing on the propriety of these proceedings - if it had done, Arbcom would have made a finding to that effect
  4. Disregarding a sizeable portion of the community who commented at the original RfC on the basis that one editor has been sanctioned seems rude to those concerned
  5. Invalidating the RfC would mean invalidating all of it and returning to the apparent ambiguity post-Arbcom motion. If the RfC is flawed, as claimed, then all opinions and all possible consensuses arising from it cannot be said to have been found. That includes proposals from all sides of the discussions.

If the RfC doesn't come to a conclusion, I am extremely concerned that this will somehow end up back before arbitration which would be messy and drama-filled. I suggest continuing well-advertised and well organised discussion - Okip's suggestion of moving pahse II to the front page of the RfC would be a step in that direction. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the extent that because the RfC is flawed due to the wikigaming and bad faith of those bringing it, any attempt to divine consensus from it is also flawed and we may need a do-over. If that creates mess and drama, the only people to blame are those trying to undermine the process in the first place. I think consensus could still be found in an orderly process, but trying to bully the community to action is not going to work. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We categorically do not need a "do-over." And when some members of the community are more content to maintain the status quo than to actually fix the problem, then it is time to nudge those members toward action. Calling these nudges "bullying" is more than a bit silly. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see the wiki-gaming that Okip refers to - not one shred of evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of secret collusion by the individuals supporting this drive. All we have is the result of one recently closed Arbcom case, which had nothing to do with this RfC or the events that brought it about - it muddies the waters, and I don't see how it is productive to wipe everything out and start again because of a single set of inaccurate statements. If anyone has any evidence of the secret collusion, they can post it here, or forward it to myself or arbcom-l, and we will deal with it. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)No one execpt Okip or Wikidemon does. But anyone who tries to tell him otherwise gets attacked and accused of being a member of the "secret mailing list" or he just lets it "calm down" and stops replying when he realizes that he's been caught in a lie (see the "dangerous precedents" and "About libel" sections). Mr.Z-man 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you whether you were a member of the "secret mailing list", you could simply responded "no". I do not know who the 24 members are of this "secret mailing list", Durova said she was given names, and she wanted confirmation, every time I ask editors who seem to know a lot about this "secret mailing list" they refuse to answer, just as MZMcBride avoiding answering straight forward questions repeatedly.[7][8]
You stated that my comments were harassment, and yet, you call my comments a "lie".
"or he just lets it "calm down" and stops replying when he realizes that he's been caught in a lie"
This is a common debate tactic, listed on many websites, if an editor does not get the answer, or immediately answer to your satisfaction you claim that the editor is being elusive. Which is ironic, because I have asked you twice some very pointed questions, which you have not answered either. Okip BLP Contest 18:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I doubt the community is going to tolerate any more acting out. We should discount the opinions voiced here by MZMcBride and any known socks they have enabled. This does cast some doubt on the whole process. However, the discussion continues and I don't think their particular proposals are among those with the most support anyway. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MZM has not created any socks. Please provide some evidence for your allegations, or retract them. Mr.Z-man 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to defend an dysoped administrator who vandalizes unreferenced BLPs by proxy? If you are so concerned about unreferenced BLPs, isn't it logical to assume you would be concerned about this vandalism?
Why do you continue to play the definition game, as MZMcBride did?[9] Yes, technically MZMcBride did not have any socks, but he gave information to an indefinitely banned user to sock puppet.
"MZMcBride gave this list to K. despite knowing, or at least reasonably suspecting, that (i) K. intended to use it to edit the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets and that (ii) K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorised to edit the English Wikipedia for any purpose at all." Why do you continue to defend such behavior Mr.Z-man?
Please be careful, because you are judged by the company you keep. When you want to advance in wikipedia, editors will look back on this conversation and say "Mr.Z-man defended the actions of a dysoped administrator and his banned sockpuppet who vandalized wikipedia". Okip BLP Contest 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it is you who needs to be more careful about tossing around unfounded accusations of sock-puppetry, and about issuing not-so-vague "I'll remember this and hold it against you down the road" threats. Involve yourself more with the topic matter of BLP articles and how to help the process along, and involve yourself less with your perceptions and misconceptions of other editors. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okip: Rather then harping on the (admittedly sordid) history in this area, I'd suggest continuing to attempt to find a solution which you and the other side of the issue can live with. There's too much water underneath the bridge to suddenly claim a do-over.. As I said before, running out the clock is not an option. I think a reminder to be more collegial is needed in this discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TARC true or false, did a banned user, supported by MZMcBride, create vandalism on wikipedia.[10]
Defending and burying vandalism of BLPs does not help the process along, does it? Okip BLP Contest 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"MZMcBride provided information, derived from special access to Wikimedia Foundation servers, to a banned user ("K."), knowing that K. intended to use the data to vandalize biographies of living people on the English Wikipedia."
I guess it is your word against a unanimous arbitration committee. Okip BLP Contest 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have started a process here with broad support and agreement on the goal, if not the specifics, of cleaning up the backlog of unsourced BLPs. I don't think there's much support for stopping it or rolling back the clock for a do-over. And whatever we do, it's going to take some more discussion to narrow this down into some proposals to approve and implement. So for the most part I think SirFozzie's right, it's water under the bridge. My observation is just that it casts a cloud on how much consensus we can find in the discussion to date, upon realizing that not everyone participating was doing so on the up-and-up. We haven't finished the discussion anyway, so it might just mean we're 55% of the way there instead of 65% as people had hoped. Let's go forward, and just agree that there shouldn't be any more funny stuff. It's a collaboration project so let's collaborate. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Wikidemon. Now is the time for collaboration, for coming up with a process we can execute without too much trouble and strife, and for ensuring it is one that is at least satisfactory to as many folk as possible. But a do-over would be a very bad thing. I'd rather not return to the status quo ante. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of Fritzpoll[edit]
  1. Actions perpetrated by MZMcBride did not lead to this RfC - the motion regarding mass deletions by Kevin, Scott MacDonald and others did.
    Are Kevin, Scott MacDonald, Coffee and Lar members of sofix.org? A website which MZMcBride ran?
  2. MZMcBride has not been admonished for "running a secret mailing list" or even from a secret forum - I should know, I read the publicly made statements! This a misrepresentation that is categorically false.
    MZMcBride has never been admonished for "running a secret mailing list". I never claimed that, and if I did, I will retract it. The "secret mailing list" exists, sofix.org, this was what was privately reported to the administrators in October 2009, it was only on December 23, 2009 when former arbcom member Casliber made this list public, after the arbitration committee, to my knowledge, did nothing. The arbitration committee continues to tacitly support this "secret mailing list", stating that they can do nothing. And yet the creator of this "secret mailing list" creates this RFC, and they give their blessing, and refuse to even entertain the possibility that there is no connection between the "secret mailing list", meat-puppetry, and canvassing.
  3. The outcome of the MZMcBride motion has no bearing on the propriety of these proceedings - if it had done, Arbcom would have made a finding to that effect
    MZMcBride enlisted a banned sock puppet to conduct vandalism on Biographies of living people,
    "The context strongly suggests that K. would subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to then; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results. According to K., even as MZMcBride handed over the list to him, MZMcBride expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion."
    MZMcBride the creator of this RFC, is creating the very crisis he wants new rules for.
    MZMcBride has a "secret mailing list", "The context strongly suggests" this "secret mailing list" is being used for meat-puppetry, and canvassing.
  4. Disregarding a sizeable portion of the community who commented at the original RfC on the basis that one editor has been sanctioned seems rude to those concerned
    Tacitly supporting meat-puppetry, and canvassing by not investigating seems negligent. Do you know the names of this "secret mailing list" Fritzpoll? Do they include Kevin, Scott MacDonald, Coffee and Lar?
  5. Invalidating the RfC would mean invalidating all of it and returning to the apparent ambiguity post-Arbcom motion. If the RfC is flawed, as claimed, then all opinions and all possible consensuses arising from it cannot be said to have been found. That includes proposals from all sides of the discussions.
    I addressed the mishandling of the phase II above. At what point are the results so tainted by "secret mailing list", sock puppet vandalism, etc. that the ends no longer justify means.
    If there was community consensus for these changes, editors would not have to go to such dirty means to get their desired end result. Your tacit support of such behavior is troubling.

Why can the arbcom committee, make assumptions that "The context strongly suggests" and yet they turn a blind eye to potential sockpuppetry, meatpuppety and canvassing which "the context strongly suggests"? Okip BLP Contest 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall respond in turn:
  1. I have no idea and neither do you - you are making an accusation that these editors, in otherwise good standing, are in violation of several of our policies. Making such accusations without evidence is disruptive. Either provide your evidence against these editors, or retract your accusations - repeating them again without evidence will be viewed dimly
  2. Quote from you above "The creator of this Request for Comment, MZMcBride, just lost his administrator privileges, for running a "secret mailing list" "dedicated to tightening up BLP practices" - I look forward to your retraction of this inaccurate statement, per your offer. He lost them for supplying details to a banned user on a publicly viewable forum. Please stop calling sofixit.org a "mailing list" - a website forum is not a mailing list, and it's very confusing to work out what you are talking about. I do not have the details of this website's contents. If you do, please forward them to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because barring this site's existence I have no information about it. Are you suggesting we sanction someone for simply owning a website, without evidence of on-wiki impropriety resulting? I sincerely hope not.
  3. You are conflating two separate things - this RfC was born out of the deletions problem, not vandalism by the banned user. Since MZM's view has been rejected in the RfC, I fail to see why his opinions or statements matter to you.
  4. I have dealt with this above. I know nothing of the contents of this website. Nor do you, apparently - if you do, then forward it to arbcom-l. Otherwise, I fail to see what exactly it is you want us to do about an off-wiki private website whose contents are secret.
  5. Given that you and I have no knowledge of the contents of this website, I can only conclude that you are making suppositions as to the motivation of the editors who you are accusing. I see no evidence of collusion, I see no evidence of sockpuppetry in this RfC (which is the only kind that is relevant in the here and now).
Your rhetoric here seems to be an effort to derail this RfC by accusing several editors in good standing, including an Ombudsman for the Wikimedia Foundation, of violating core policies. You do so without any evidence, beyond pointing to something that you know nothing about and saying "they could be doing stuff in there...". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and supposition is not evidence. Back up your claims immediately, or retract them Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response
  1. I have asked others to repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page. I consider these editors continued posting on my page as baiting. I know these editors would like to see me silenced, because I continue to bring up things which put them in an unfavorable light.
  2. I do not have the freedom to talk about MZM any more, because I was blocked by a "non-impartial" editor. I have restrictions imposed upon me as a condition of my unbanning, these editors know this, and so again, I see these editors continued posting on my talk page and asking me questions about MZM, as an attempt to bait me, boot me, and silence me. Calling me a "coward" is just a continuation of this.[11] I may not be an administrator, and I may not be on the "side" with all the power, have very many editors who support me with much power, but I am no idiot, I know the tactics deployed.
  3. The same editors who engineered, forgave, or supported a severe violation of consensus, then have the audacity to lecture me on the importance of consensus in this RFC. Scott, every time I see you use the word consensus, I remember your severe violation of consensus.
  4. These same editors who support the end result want everyone to have group amnesia, to rewrite a more sanitized version of history, to forget why we all got here in the first place: there was a severe violation of consensus followed by an unprecedented amnesty.
  5. These editors actions in all of this, despite your amnesty and Mr. Wales thanks twice, have been a severe violation of consensus. No amount of back peddling will change the fact that what they did was "utter contempt" for "community consensus". Most editors will never get an amnesty. In my opinion, only those who support the personal views of the majority arbitration committee and Mr. Wales will get amnesty.
  6. I will happily retract everything I said about that blocked editor, because indeed, by its very design, (link on request with permission) there is no solid evidence linking these editors to this group. The two editors who blew the whistle on this, former administrators Casliber and Durova, refuse to publicly list the names of this group.
  7. The most spectacular allegations have caught the attention of everyone, and the less spectacular have been side-lined, the most important: the admins closing of the RFC was improper. As Mr.Z-man admits, only one side was advocated. This has been partially remedied by Fram, in which I am grateful.
  8. If someone else cares to move this section back to the phase I talk page, I welcome it. I ask that you please don't delete everyone's comments though.
  9. I will strike the unsupported comments after work, I have no access to wikipedia at work.
  10. As mentioned before, the threat unreferenced BLPs present has been so blown out of proportion. One editor who referenced 3000 BLPs estimated that only 1 in 300 articles have contentious or libelous material. Many other editors said the same. As Jclemens wrote: "The risk reduced--and let's be clear, there certainly will be some--is insufficient to justify the widespread deletion of accurate, useful, and innocuous information, sourced or not, and ultimately damages Wikipedia without helping BLP vandalism subjects." (Caveat, with sadness I must report that Jclemens supported some form of deletion in Phase II)
  11. If there really was community support for what these editors and others are advocating, there would have been no need for the deletion of hundreds of articles, and stopping the RFC early to advocate one position.

Okip BLP Contest 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the comments with relation to the actual purpose of this RfC - you are entitled to your views on this matter. I hope to see the unsupported accusations to be struck both here and at the talk page of the Phase I subpage by this time tomorrow. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if this meets your requirements. Thank you for giving me the chance of correcting this first, I really appreciate this. Okip BLP Contest 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okip, I've asked you multiple times to stop quoting me out of context and twisting my words around to make it seem like I support you. I have no idea why you feel the need to mention me in almost every other comment you make on this RFC, but its getting disturbing. You've mentioned it 4 times on this page alone. You know my feelings on the matter; at this point I can only assume that you continue to do it in order to harass me. Mr.Z-man 17:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okip, no matter how many times you say "secret mailing list" (which, for the record, is 32 times on this page so far), it's not going to make it an accurate statement. I can honestly say there is no "secret mailing list". Furthermore, the forums are not MZMcBride's. Get your facts straight. Lara 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How much money do you want to bet that Ikip will act like he doesn't see that post... I'm up for fifty wikidollars... — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving sections of discussion without consensus or notification.[edit]

From User talk:Ikip

Don't do that again, please, Okip. That is unacceptable behaviour. I understand your distress that the community as a whole does not see things the way you do, but you are going too far in pursuing your objectives. The level of personal attack you are mounting against several editors is unacceptable as well. You are entitled, even encouraged, to make legitimate comments. This behaviour is not within that scope. Risker (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed both the old moved section, and the new section I created here, without consensus or notification. As described above, I discuss how you have followed consensus in forming phase II. Please do not bury this discussion again. Okip BLP Contest 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ay caramba! What's all this about and why does it make any difference? You normally don't need to get consensus first before a bold attempt to organize a discussion, but if people object best leave it how it was. I can't figure out why it makes any difference which particular page hosts a particular thread though... we can all find it either way. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as an appeal, this whole "secret mailing list" and sockpuppeting thing isn't directly related to this RfC so can we please wind that down? I've already gone out on a limb about as far as I'm going to go to say that it might cast a little light on the discussion, but it's pretty indirect. If there is a process or behavior problem to take care of, could we please deal with that in some other place? I don't think we can do anything about it here, and it's distracting us from concentrating on the issue of BLPs. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separating issues[edit]

Proposal -- Discuss behavioral issues elsewhere.

Support
  1. Maurreen (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support A separate RFC should be started for behavioral issues. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The closer of the first phase was anything but uninvolved. Others behaviors have caused this issue to appear to be a larger problem than it is. That those things are, unfortunately, highly relevant to how we got here and where we should go. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I don't think article content will be affected regardless YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truce?[edit]

Here's an idea: Why don't we declare a truce about personal and behavioral issues, delete or archive that material, and move on? Maurreen (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion[edit]

this discussion is not relevant to the RfC - please discuss the perception article and general complaints about Wikipedia elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear all,

Thank you for invitation, but I am now busy with finalising the article on Perception. I will however outline my proposal to Wikipedia somewhere under Secure Site. For benefits of those I’ll repeat my proposal here, but intro first:

Wikipedia suffers from cut & paste (with little understanding) culture of editors. Wikipedia also does not reward good editors, neither it’s punishing bad editors. As result we have a lot of turf wars and stonewalling. Philosophers, for example, do not have a clue about perception and well researched consciousness by psychologists. When I suggested a disambiguation they simply stonewalled and later deleted the inconvenient discussions. One of them simply deleted my draft rewrite of the Perception article and related discussion...

To address this kind of behaviour, I reorganised Talk:Perception page, set some additional rules for what can be done by whom, taking up responsibilities etc. There will be additional section for scheduled and assigned tasks later. I have also introduced a king of reward for job well done. And I did all of this, because my proposal may be a long time in the making. And it is as follows:

  • A good editor with successful contributions in more than one projects, should be visibly rewarded by colour coded stars: up to three bronze stars - successful contributions in 2-4 projects; up to three silver stars (5-7 projects); up to three golden stars (8-10 and over).
  • Editors should be visibly discredited also; running below any star. The words of such editors will be highly questionable in any discussion in which editors with stars should be able to prevail.
  • I suggest that we have a new template, with all sections of the article locked. All sections of the article should be replicated at the discussion tab as a basis for discussion. Editors should be able to add their suggestion and seek an agreement from others. Only after an agreement is reached, the change should take place. If there is no reply to the proposal in 3/4 weeks the proposal will be considered as agreed to.
  • On request, all cloned sections of the article will repopulate the article page itself. This would enable an easy version control and could be used to award contributors and punish disrespectful and other bad behaviour - automatically.

I believe that this approach could be effective in biographies of living people also. However additional guards against ideological, religious and other prejudices might be required.

I’ll be back within a week. Meanwhile, try to work through possible implications.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the "general rules" at that page as running counter to almost everything Wikipedia stands for. You should head WP:OWN a bit more. Your approach creates much larger problems than it solves. Fram (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fram,
You are demonstrating precisely what I am trying to prevent here in the interest of Wikipedia. You are not only inpolite and disrespectful. You simply assume that you are "right" and in the "wraht of a righteous" you jump around and destroy...
You did not even think of oposing with arguments. You just passed your own "judgement" or, beter to say prejudice. And I had enough of this. Please report me to the hiearchy, for I undid your destructive delition. And let us see...
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, It seems that there are others than Fram here who seem to be flourishing in the cracks of Wikipedia policies. And, of course, they will do anything against amending these cracks, including destructive deletions of work of others (on technicalities) and simply bulling. Such people do not care about how to put articles on living people under control. And we have here endless discussions about this... To destructive individuals here: Report me. I have already reported you. I had enough. And keep away from the Percept article. To those who wish to be constructive: You are welcome and I will enjoy your company and helpful comments. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dibrisim - no one person at wikipedia can "set up rules" for others to follow, we work by consensus. We also work by the strength of arguments, not by degree of authority as measured as number of bronze stars or any other means. You should read up on the basic policies of wikipedia as found in the five pillars. Also your comments on how to restructure wikipedia are completely misplaced her, as this is a discussion about what to do with sourcing in Biographies of Living Persons. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Maunus,
Thank you first for addressing the issues you have here.
If you read what “rules” I have established, you would notice that I insist on the agreement first and above all. I am also insisting on valid arguments, not technicalities. These are all in “pillars” you are talking about. And yes, I am proposing to reward editors, but not to give them authority. It is simply aimed at rewarding them for substantial discussions that brought about a resolution to an issue.
And I am proposing this to Wikipedia. I am glad that you oppose my proposal, but you did not offer me anything that will help to resolve endless discussions here. So, what you actually propose?
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I insist on agreement first and above all"? No you insist on using accounts first and above all: "Anonimity is discouraged. Changes of an anonimus are likely to be reverted within 24 hours - automatically." Furthermore, you start your talk page rules with "This article was rewritten with a tacit support from the most of editors." However, the article (Perception hasn't been changed in any meaningful way since at least October 2009. The article has never been protected either. Your rules are not only totally irrelevant to the BLP RfC, but are also utterly misplaced on Talk:Perception as well.Fram (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let us leave to others to judge. You just added a solid argument on my side. Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was jusged by others. Maurreen removed your edits as well, you reverted her. Pablo then added "The actual 'rules' for talk pages are discussed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. No other rules are necessary or desirable on this particular page." Maunus (above) basically said the same. I think that "others" have already judged, and disagreed with the way you have set up rules for the talk page. Fram (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to Pablo and he did not come back to me yet. But he was polite and respectful, unlike you and Maurreen. And I do hope that Pablo and I will understand each other - and agree. For such an agreement with you and Maurreen - I lost hope. Your actions speak louder than your words. And you are forgenting that there is more people here than just you and Maurreen. Do the math. Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally the important part of my message was that this is not the place for this discussion. Please take it elsewhere.11:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

If you want to change Wikipedia, the place to try that is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Maurreen (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, this is just the right place to to discuss this, Maunus. Fram just dropped in to delete as you did - again with no real reason behind. Not even an attempt to discuss that, here or on the disscussion tab of the perception article.

Like a mob... (Not yet ready to hang, though.)

Fram asked me to whom I have reported him... Well he will see that.

And yes, I do want to change Wikipedia. Is not that a purpose of this endless BLP discussion?

Dear Maunus, you underestimate me. You are putting yourself here as an "Ultimate Judge" here. And that place is reserved for God only or for those hwo pretend to be. So, go ahead.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask to whom you reported me, I asked to whom you reported Maurreen... As for "no real reason" and "no attempt to discuss", I noted the removal of your rules and the reason for them both on your user talk page and here, with WP:OWN named explicitly here, and a few more at your talk page. You still want to keep the talk page rule "Every editor who successfully initiated a change to the article, has the right to sign here and describe the agreed change or changes. This is the only reward we can currently provide to serious editors. We also offer to the editors listed here a final say in the discussions and rights to implement the changes.", with the only people listed yourself (as the "Original author of the article.") and the one editor who has halped you on the talk page. Of course, in reality you are not the "original author of the article at all", the article is from 2002 and has over 700 edits already. What you would be, if everything went to plan, was the author of a new version of the article, and thereafter the judge of who was allowed to edit it and what changes would be implemented. Can't you see how that goes against the letter and the spirit of WP:OWN? Fram (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is Forming[edit]

With the exception of a few vocal voices, there does seem to be come conesus forming. I don't think everybody is 100 percent happy with all of these issues, but here is what I see:

Issues which seem to appease both camps
  1. An acceptance of BLP-PROD for new unsourced BLP's written after the close of the RfC.
  2. An acceptance of some sort of policy/guideline change to indicate that we expect BLP's to have sources or they may be deleted. (I use "may" because somebody else may add a source or it may not be found.)

Those two items should stem the tide of future articles and I think most people can stomache them---even if they would rather see something else.

Issues which require further discussion

I think it is clear that something has to be done with old unsourced BLP's. While it is disputable as to the amount of harm/damage that can be and is done by having a BLP unsourced, I think the tide is clear---the foundation and Jimbo want BLP's to have sources. We can wail and gnash our teeth all we want, but this is not an area where we can prevail. If we don't address the situation on our own, then the Foundation/Wales will come down and make us comply. This may not happen tomorrow, but it is only a matter of time---the tea leaves are crystal clear on this matter.

This means cleaning up old BLP's. Again there are some issues in this arena that are clear:
  1. We want to recruit as many people/projects as possible to this clean up effort.
  2. We do not want the clean up effort to be a haphazard mass deletion spree.
  3. We want/need time to make this clean up a reality.
  4. Many of the existing unsourced BLPs are not problematic in that they actually do contain sources.
  5. Many of the existing unsourced BLPs do not harm WP in that they are factual and neutral, but because they deal with living people the expectation is shifting related to sourcing.
Some issues are developing consensus, but are on more shaky groud:
  1. What to do with unsourced BLPs, eg should old unsourced BLPs will be deleted.
  2. A time line needs to be formed related to these old unsourced BLPs.
  3. What to do with old unsourced BLPs that are discovered after the clean up phase is complete.
Some issues have been rejected:
  1. Any proposal to speedy delete unsourced/poorly source BLP's.
  2. Any notion to automate deletions.

Personally, I think we need to focus on the items in the shaky ground area and close this thing.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are saying is accurate and reasonable. Are you suggesting we close the ongoing discussion and move to a new phase? J04n(talk page) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. IMO I think we have enough of a consensus to work on ironing out details. Even the issue of "deleting" old BLPs seems to be forming a consensus---some of us may not fully agree/support it, but I think the writing is clear enough that we should move to figuring out a way that even the strictest inclusionist can be happy.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Balloonman, coming from the opposite side of this debate I think I'd agree with your assessment. I'd suggest a strategy that might get agreement would be:
  1. Introduce a sticky-prod for new BLPs now. We do this in the least BITEy way we can, but basically all new BLPs must have a source of somekind to stay in the encyclopedia. We can create a "help desk" for new editors needing help here, and a list of articles tagged so people can help out.
  2. Set a target of, say, one year to clear up the backlog
  3. Do nothing for three months, so see if the recent falls in the backlog continue. Encourage wikiprojects to help out with referencing. Hopefully three months from now it might be evident that we can reach the target without any "stick". The optimists may well be right.
  4. If the progress stalls and the backlog stops falling at the current rate, then in three months we may need to start discussing deadlines. These might be something like tagging 1/4 of the backlog for deletion three months later - but that can be discussed at the time - and hopefully will not be necessary. At the moment we don't have any consensus here. The matter will remain for review and discussion in three months.
--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the "do nothing for 3 months" piece is wise... we are all procrastinators and if we wait for 3 months, some might want to reopen a new RfC to see if consensus has changed again ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'do nothing' should be not characterized as 'doing nothing', allowing the projects to work on the backlog is doing something and the three month re-evaluation proposed by Scott Mac (Doc) sounds like a good plan to me. J04n(talk page) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd rather set deadlines now and have a "we delete this if it isn't referenced by xyz" approach. But I'm trying to judge consensus here. I think we can get the prod thing working immediately, and I think we need to see whether we can reduce the backlog without a deletion threat - not because I think we can, but because I think that until it is shown we can't, we'll not get consensus to do anything more. However, if we can set a "one year" target, then we have the beginnings of an acceptance than one way or another we must get to the place where there are no unreferenced BLPs hanging about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Balloonman's summary is spot-on. The changes to new unreferenced BLPs make sense and seem to have general agreement. There also appears to be general agreement that the backlog needs to be cleared. I think some amnesty period (Scott Mac's 3 month suggestion is reasonable) for interested editors/wikiprojects to see if they can continue to make progress is a good idea with the "stick" of a phased summary deletion process scheduled to begin if progress halts. What do we think would be good progress for three months from now (backlog at 30,000, 20,000, or something else)? Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about trying to eliminate the backlog by the end of 2010? Is that at all feasible as a target? If so, we could measure progress by whether we're achieving the necessary rate of backlog reduction implied by that target. Rd232 talk 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there will come a point when sourcing will be more difficult than it is now. At the moment, I am finding several very notable athletes who have articles that were created in 2004, 2005 and 2006 which were only tagged as unreferenced in late 2009, and these are easy to source. However, I think we will struggle to source the hundreds of articles about athletes from Thailand (or pick another country that few editors will know the local language). It would not surprise me if another 20,000 articles can be sourced in 3 months time, but the rate will almost certainly slow as we get into the difficult to source articles. Jogurney (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we can stop new unsourced BLPs accumulating, by implementing a new BLP-PROD process, then we can hold off on being too strict about the backlog, as long as the present sourcing efforts continue. The main thing is to reduce the rate of new additions to the stock of unsourced BLPs - and as soon as possible. If after 3 months of that the backlog isn't shrinking fast enough, we can come up with rules for applying BLP-PROD to the backlog at a manageable rate. Rd232 talk 17:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Balloonman has a very concise statment/proposal on the matter and belive we should head in that direction. I don't belive the 3 Month option is a good idea, because if we do that then we'll be right back where we are now ! Mlpearc (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that my last post was missing the word 'not' (just added it in bolded). Would folks be happy if we said that projects would be allowed to continue sourcing with a goal of reducing the backlog to 30,000 within three months, 20,000 in 6, 10,000 in 9, and zero in a year? I agree with starting the BLP-prod for new articles ASAP. J04n(talk page) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JO4n that might be the best timeline proposal I've seen yet. That we work towards eliminating BLPs, but have some measures in place that say, "If these specific criteria are not met, then we will implement stage 2 criteria, which would be the defined deletions!"---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the weekly Signpost to keep tab of the progress or lack of progress. --KrebMarkt 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several very different Phase I proposals reached consensus, and any solution is likely to earn wider support if it considers all of them. Those rows of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#Table summary with strong support from many respondents provide a list of agreements reached. If the solution is incompatible with any of these proposals, then the reasons for making a policy against the consensus would be appreciated. Certes (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's too late to actually go by our consensai, but the most supported options were varities of "do nothing". This has been turned into "do something" without consensus. I'll admit, "do nothing" didn't have quite enough consensus to overcome an incorrect summarization, so I'll just note it here to no effect. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there were some who accused others of wanting to "do nothing" I don't think that perspective actually was the most supported position... even if it was, I don't think we really have much of a choice. Jimbo Wales and the Foundation want something done... which means that we do something as a community or we wait until they dictate terms. I'd rather we take what little control we have and move forward.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point. The Foundation, ArbCom & Jumbo want that issue solved regardless how flawed are the rationals behind it. We are thus being limited to decide how to solve the issue. On the paper one side had the backing of the higher-up but the other side had manpower and capability to turn any victory into a "pyrrhic" one. So we negotiate and try to find an a acceptable compromise for everyone. --KrebMarkt 08:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this section about forming a consensus in the traditional sense of what most responding editors agree is best? Or is it about finding a solution which we know to be against our wishes because someone thinks that ArbCom, Jimmy Wales or some other governing body would veto what we really want? I don't think we can word a solution until we are clear which objective it aims at. If it's the second option, then we must clarify what limits we're working within and who determined them. Those limits should be stated, with sources, alongside the solution to help editors to understand why it is being imposed and to decide whether Wikipedia is still the right place for their contributions. I would hate us to miss a practical, popular and acceptable solution in the mistaken belief that it would have been overruled. Certes (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the ArbCom left little room for doubt, unsourced BLP issue will be resolved "One Way or Another". Worst case, if there is no consensus the initiative will certainly return to ArbCom and i really doubt that you will appreciate what ArbCom will decide. In that context, i personally prefer to decide How and When i fight this one instead of leaving others to decide for me. --KrebMarkt 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting view and a very useful plan B in case I'm being naive and co-operation fails. As I understand it, ArbCom judges disputes by interpreting existing policy. It seems unclear whether ArbCom also creates policy; my reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy is that it doesn't. Even if it does, I hope that it would base that policy on whatever consensus we reach here. Communication with ArbCom is a two-way process. I don't know enough about any individual Arbitrator to praise or criticise them, but I trust the community to have elected fair and reasonable candidates. Given the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, it's in everyone's interest for policies to appeal to as many editors as possible. Certes (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, here we go again, the "change is inevitable" argument. Never mind the most supported section in this RFC phase II states that "I'm not entirely convinced that we actually need to create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and regulation here" The arbcom does not make policy, they let the community decide. And the community has been torn on these proposals, with different views developing. What makes it even more difficult to decide true consensus as opposed to repeated manufactured consensus, is the improper way this RFC was closed. Again, if there was such consensus for change as editors claim, then why was only one position advocated in Phase II and other positions ignored, why was this repeated again yesterday, for the third time, when only one position was advocated, and all other positions were ignored? 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is forming: an alternative view and table summary of all positions[edit]

As I have shown in Phase I, be VERY wary when editors claim consensus. Balance these claims with the POV and past interests of the editor.

I resent that this RFC has become more a issue of attrition instead of an issue of trying to form true consensus. If true consensus was possible, and these positions were as popular as these editors claim, none of this would have been necessary.

Balloonman's #Consensus is forming statement above, was written at 16:16, 19 February 2010. At the time, his Balloon's own proposal (which shows his own position in this) had 13 supports and 1 oppose.[12]

In comparison:

  1. Maurreen's WP:Before proposal had roughly 19-7
  2. Bearcat's proposal: "Reinventing the wheel?" had roughly 16-1
  3. Jclemens proposal, with many of the ideas which Balloonman advocated [later]: 16-29.

Instead of bringing up these alternate proposals, Balloonman advocates one: his own, and proclaims that "Consensus is forming". This is the exact same way "summary" was written in phase I, the language is the same as Phase I|when the RFC was improperly closed, and only one position was advocated.

  1. Do 13 editors decide consensus for the entire project? Where is Jclemens proposal, which was defeated nearly two to one, considered in this "consensus is forming" statement?
  2. Why does the editor who stated "consensus is forming", proclaim that his own proposal is the consensus which is forming, dismissing more popular proposals as "exception of a few vocal voices"?
  3. Based on the table summary, is it possible that the editor's proposal is the actual "exception of a few vocal voices"?

Finally, Balloonman's new proposal in many respects is very Jclemens proposal, which was defeated nearly two to one.

Table summary

Caveat, these numbers maybe incorrect, please correct them.

submission submission time subject Support
(S) 		Oppose
(O) 		Neutral
(N) 		%Support
(%S) 		Stance
TerryE 20:03, 13 February 2010 Why not have a three state outcome? 5 1
Alvestrand 05:51, 8 February 2010 Edit first, with prod backup 5 0
Coffee 07:33, 8 February 2010 a means to an end 9 14
Phantomsteve 12:09, 13 February 2010 Proposed amendment to Coffee's proposal 4 1
WFCforLife 10:31, 11 February 2010 Counter-prod if we dip below the current rate 1 1
Bearcat Reinventing the wheel? 16 1
21:57, 7 February 2010 Pacing: Do 2 months backlog every month 1 0
Jclemens 21:57, 7 February 2010 New unsourced BLP handling 16 29
Kevin Standard BLP-PROD for unsourced new BLPs 15 4
Pohta_ce-am_pohtit 16:43, 8 February 2010 Automatic userification of unsourced new BLPs 3 12
Gigs AfD/MfD style forum for unsourced BLPs 3 2
ϢereSpielChequers Poorly Sourced BLPs 6 1
Maurreen A categorical solution 1 0
WereSpielChequers Newly Found Old Unsourced BLPs 2 1
Maurreen Incubate 2 1
DustFormsWords Delete unsourced statements on sight 1 13
Maurreen WP:Before 19 16
Balloonman 23:49, 18 February 2010 The guidelines surrounding the creation of new articles should be modified 17 1
Balloonman 22:37, 19 February 2010 Part 1: Items where consensus seems to be clear 22 1
Balloonman 22:37, 19 February 2010 Part 2: Where consensus isn't quite as clear 13 0

[signed later] Okip 12:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okip, please when you try to slander somebody please make sure to sign your posts.[13][14] As for my proposal being the same as JCLEMENS... you did notice who the main opponent was to JCLEMENS proposal? You do realize that the two proposals are not the same? My proposal is in no way shape or form the same as JCLEMENS and any attempt to say otherwise is ludicrous, but you've made it a pattern throughout both phases of this RfC to make ad hominem attacks on people whom you disagree with. As for your summaries, don't forget to include Round 1 which had about 400 different users contribute, rather than 50 or so who have partaken in round 2. Round 1 has a clear mandate for BLP-PROD (a position I firmly opposed, if you recall.) But determining consensus is not about espousing what you believe and support, it is about looking at the whole of the evidence, weighing the strength of argument (HINT: ad hominem attacks weigh very little), and guaging the way the wind is blowing. Between the two parts of this RfC, BLP-PROD for new articles has a clear mandate. Round 2 of the RfC deal with the main reason people were opposing part BLP-PROD in part 1---the fear that it would be used wholesale on OLD BLP's. With BLP-PROD being principly limited to NEW BLPs that concern is abrogated. Part 2 basically says we are commited to cleaning up the old unsourced BLPs (which just about everybody agrees to) and that we are going to hold off on making any real changes until the community fails to live up to this expectation.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I also get a kick out of how you are trying to make it look like the proposal for wp:BEFORE has 19 supports and only 7 opposes. There were 16 comments at the time you wrote this opposing that proposal! The fact that somebody doesn't write "Oppose" does not mean that their stance does not matter. We call this an !vote because it's not a vote. One other person has added his oppose after your wrote the above. But it makes for a better argument if you discount the 9 people who didn't write "oppose" in the oppose section.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 09:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Balloonman, I DID include Round 1, in a table, which editors collapsed. Despite this table, Risker only advocated one position, in direct contradiction to the intention of Phase II. In phase II even Mr.Z-Man admitted only one position was advocated.[15]
There are similarities between your proposal and Jclemens, which was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1.
"Between the two parts of this RfC, BLP-PROD for new articles has a clear mandate."
I get really tired of repeating myself, sigh, but I know this is how editors control the debate: repeating the same thing over and over and over ad nauseum, and if there is no response, casual editors will take it as the truth.
Phase I: Jclemens position, Collect's position, and DGG's position were ignored in Phase II, in which only one position was advocated.
Phase II: Unlike in my table, which explains all positions, your summary completely ignores positions. Okip 12:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-table break[edit]

Assuming that the numbers in the table were correct at the time of writing, it does appear that there was not then consensus for either sticky prods or changing the policies to make stronger statements concerning sourcing.

Also, it does not appear that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content has been considered. (Granted that the proliferation of related discussions is not the best way to do things.)

Thus, the current consensus that there is a consensus might be transitory and illusory. :) Maurreen (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget the overwhelming majority of users from round 1 who supported the BLP-PROD proposal. This RfC was opened essentially to discuss how the BLP-PROD should be enacted, not whether or not it should be. The small minority of users who opposed change here, do not override that mandate.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with newly created articles[edit]

I think that a lot of contention could be avoided by changing the initial template for creating an article page to include a mandatory field where the article creator must include a source. If they fail to include a source, the page gets plopped into their user space instead. Active Banana (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is why use of the Article wizard should be encouraged. There was a proposal to make it mandatory for newbies. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your original point, there's no way to check the source they put is reliable, actually related, or not just arbitrary text. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said "a lot" not all. ;-) People who willfully choose to not abide by Wikipedias 5 pillars will always be an issue while Wikipedia holds to its "anyone can edit" / "assume good faith" policy. But taking positive steps to ensure that people don't unknowingly fall astray of the policies is probably a best practice that should be encouraged when posible in ways that will help avoid some of the most irritatating aspects for new users. Active Banana (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active Banana: ...to include a mandatory field where the article creator must include a source... . isn't that exactly what I've pleaded for already in about five different places on this so-called 'RfC'?
CyberCobra, whether verifiable or not, it would be a start. Verifying is a lot less time consuming than having to find sources for the lazy article creators.
Finally, although off topic here, I am an advocate of all editors needing to register.--Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you people have not seen how many articles use example.com as a source! Since that is the article wizard template. At WP:AFC articles are not accepted without a source. But this needs a manual intervention step before the article proposed hits article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blinking twice. That's what the "Requested article for creation" department in any project demands to have an article created. Enough sources to not only prove existence of the subject but also enough evidence that it will pass any applicable inclusion guidelines. --KrebMarkt 09:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear[edit]

I'm confused. Part of this says there is consensus for a BLP sticky PROD, and part of this says we're going to wait three months. ??? Maurreen (talk)

Oh, maybe the prod would be just for new BLPs? Maurreen (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP-PROD for new BLP and if after 3 months the back-log is not reasonably reduced, then we discuss how to apply BLP-PROD to the back-log. --KrebMarkt 11:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its this sticky PROD consensus that I seem to be missing. I haven't seen it. And I am concerned about the ramifications of letting that aspect move forward. It seems like this is a delaying threat that is essentially the same thing as the earlier proposals, a path to start deleting articles that don't conform. Politicians often use the phrase "slippery slope" and this seems like that slope has snuck its way into whatever proposals are getting . . . what do you even call this process? I don't know how it works. It sure does seem that more is happening than I have seen support for.Trackinfo (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2 was opened to consolodate the discussion from round 1. Round 1 had about 200 users supporting the notion of BLP-PROD and round 2 was to clarify that, not to determine if we should have BLP=PROD or not. That was clear from round 1 (and this is coming from one of the more vocal voices against BLP-PROD in round 1.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP-PROD issue had resounding support in round 1 and round 2 has basically declared that this should be limited to NEW blps. As for writing in a policy that deals with OLD unsourced BLP's, we are going to hold off on doing anything there. If we can clean up the mess, then there will be no need to write a policy. If we can't make progress, then we might have to resort to more draconian measures.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trackinfo There are currently two proposals to close near the bottom of the project page. People should voice their opinions on at least one of those, especially User:Balloonman's. Maurreen (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work[edit]

Kudos to Balloonman and Scott Mac (Doc) for moving this forward together. Maurreen (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to commend Scott, if it wasn't for his comments above, I probably wouldn't have made the proposal to close. The fact that he is one of the central figures in the "delete BLP camp" showed me that the two sides might not be as far apart as I thought.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromising on WP:BEFORE?[edit]

How about if any process for the sticky WP:PROD include a requirement that the Prodder notify at least one of the following:

  • Creator of the article
  • Another significant contributor to the article
  • A suitable Wikiproject

Maurreen (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen, lets be very, very crystal clear here. Any BEFORE rule is NOT going to be in the final proposal, despite its strong support here. There will be no comprimise as far as BEFORE. :This RFC closes tomorrow. Balloonman knows that, as do many of the supporters of his proposal which has nothing to do with actual consensus.
In creating his "consensus is forming" Balloonman advocated only one position: his own, (which at the time has 13 supports) marginalizing or ignoring other more popular proposals (16-1, 19-7, etc.). It is the same tactic which happened when the first phase closed.
Okip 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love your continued assumptions of bad faith... up until I made this proposal, you saw me as an ally, because I too opposed many of the issues in my final proposal. No, the proposal that I wrote up is definitely not my own, it is a summary of the consensus as formed from Rounds 1 and Rounds 2. You, however, only see one stance, and that is not to make any change whatsoever and to cast aspertions at anybody who says otherwise.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let's get the numbers straight, there is no proposal that had 19-7 support. In order to reach that number, you had to discount everybody who opposed, but didn't write the word "oppose." Very disigeneous if you ask me. Second, as for your citing the 16-1, you are discounting 163 people who supported the change before hand---and you are using this to support a position that I think shows that you read it differently than others.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 09:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the volume of comment I have made here, it all seems to be omitted. But Maurreen's proposal hits the nail on the head, lest we turn in to a railroad.Trackinfo (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blinking again. It was to my opinion obvious that both article creator, major contributor(s) and concerned wikiproject(s) will be duly contacted to give a fair chance for the prodded article to be sourced. Does every single details be written down to give more guaranty? --KrebMarkt 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting the editor isn't WP:BEFORE. If it is not written down, it will be optional. Okip 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I prod an article, I always inform the creator. Twinkle actually does it for me. It has long struck me that we would be better not leaving this to scripts, but have a bot automatically inform the creator of an article if it is prodded. That would be good for all prods, not just for BLPunsourced ones. However, the BLP unsourced prod notifications might also include helpful advice about how to source the article, and how to ask for help, as well as a request not to deprod unless sourced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue with mandatory notifications or WP:BEFORE is that it introduces technicalities that allow a deletion to be declined or overturned for reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Whether a deletion is valid or not should only depend on the page itself, not the actions of the person tagging it. But I would hardly call 53% "strong support", unless there's a BEFORE proposal other than this one somewhere. Mr.Z-man 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it depends on your perspective. Is your goal to remove misinformation, libel or junk from wikipedia? Or do you gain points or get your rocks off by removing as much stuff as you can? There are too many geeks on here that think that way. If it is just finding a speedier, more convenient way to delete information that other people might find valuable, I can't get behind you. No slip ups. Lets set specific rules for procedures to be followed BEFORE.Trackinfo (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what a "goal" has to do with it at all. My point is that the only thing that should have any bearing on whether a page is kept or not is the page itself. Its not about a more efficient process, I just don't want to see otherwise valid deletions declined or overturned simply because the tagger or deleting admin failed to check the right boxes or jump through the right hoops. Mr.Z-man 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mr.Z-man, given that the goal is to get the articles sourced, notifying people in the best position to do so should be helpful. This isn't about the most efficient way to delete. Maurreen (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that it wasn't about the most efficient way and that the goal is irrelevant to why I oppose mandatory BEFORE. I'm not arguing that notification isn't useful, I'm arguing that mandatory notification creates undesirable side effects that strong encouragement does not. Mr.Z-man 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it is a nice courtesy to contact the author, I think it is more pertinent to contact the related Projects. Many of the articles people wrote in 2006 may not be of interest to them today, but might be of interest to the respective project.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're designing a program of mass tagging and deletion, then of course we should systematize routine procedures like notifying the article creator. That could be done by bot or some other clever tool. Finding all the major contributors seems a little harder but that could probably be done by bot too. Certainly in the case of new unsourced BLPs, it's crucial to get to the person who created them so that we can convince them not to write any more. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to design a bot that will look for BLP-prods, or indeed all prods, and inform the creator, and any wikiproject which has a banner on the article. If we did that, arguing about whether people should, will or must would be irrelevant, because notification would automatically follow any prod.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duration?[edit]

Can we agree on keeping this open through Monday (for time zone to be decided)?

I'm not here saying anything about after Monday. But it would give reasonable opportunity for people who haven't been on the page in the past 24 hours or so to consider the current momentum. Maurreen (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is no problem to left it open, more participation the better. Let's no one say afterward that an handful of brigands robbed the whole Wikipedia community. I think that some neutral canvassing may be a good thing so the community can see the latest evolution in the negotiation. --KrebMarkt 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I re-factored my proposal to reflect this. Okip 19:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem keeping it open even past Monday... IMO, we are not in a rush to close. My summary of proposals is because I do see consensus forming, and that we are starting to rehash the same issues without really adding anything new. Again, I personally do not like all of the proposals in my consensus, but I think it is about the best compromise that we will come up with and I believe that most people can accept it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral canvassing[edit]

Here's a draft for neutral canvassing, as suggested by KrebMarkt. This could be placed at WP:PUMP and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. (Other suggestions?)

  1. There is a proposal to close the BLP RFC.
  2. The RFC will be open through Monday night, 23:59 Wikipedia (UTC) time.
  3. (Optional) The proposal in a nutshell --
    1. Declares consensus for:
      1. "Sticky" BLP-PROD for new unsourced BLP's, and
      2. Stronger policy against new unsourced BLP's.
Maurreen (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would do for me but i'm not an expert in that kind of thing. If anyone else can give an additional opinion so it can be posted quickly in relevant places. --KrebMarkt 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tweaked it a little, but I think it should still be OK with everyone. Maurreen (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to whatever a sticky prod is? Also to what the new proposed stronger policy would be? -- Banjeboi 01:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Q&A at the bottom of the page. Maurreen (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I have left neutral notes for a few people who apparently wanted to give input but didn't do so in a closing proposal. Maurreen (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless[edit]

It is impossible for anybody who is a regular editor to Wikipedia but new to this RfC (e.g. me) to understand what is going on here or where comments should be made. Please count me in on anything opposing more rules, more systems, more automated contributions to deletion processes, or the ability to delete articles contrary to expressed majority opinion.--Rumping (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Alternate_proposal_to_close_this_RFC:_we_don.27t_need_a_whole_new_layer_of_bureaucracy might be what you're looking for. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ahead just a little[edit]

If we end up going with User:Balloonman's proposals, I expect that the BLP prod get its own page, and the wording for the policy change(s) would be centralized at WP:BLP? Maurreen (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP-prod may end up as WP:DUB or a modified version of that page. Fram (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Maurreen (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP PROD template development now has its own page here: WT:BLP PROD TPL. --Kudpung (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

People keep !voting in the wrong place. I hope I don't regret this, but I'm going to archive much of the previous stuff. Maurreen (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping[edit]

I'm going to move the Q&A to the bottom of the page, to make it easier for anyone new to the discussion. Maurreen (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE DGG and WSC---a question for those pushing for reform?[edit]

I think both DGG and WSC have voiced legitimate concerns in their opposition to part 2 of my proposal. They have both indicated that they are on the cusp of supporting. My question is really for Scott Mac, Mr Z-Man, NW, et al---do you have any ideas on how we could go about appeasing their concerns? Again, I think they have valid concerns and would rather figure out a way to address their concerns without having to reinvent the entire discussion? Any proposals? Amendments? etc that you guys can think of that would bring them into the support column? I think they are the ones voicing the concerns about how to make the proposal more in line with what they see as consensus. I ask you guys for your input because (despite how Okip wants to paint me) I tend to be on their side.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. My concern is that there is an assumption that we are dealing with two groups of articles "unreferenced BLPs yet to be written" and the 42,000 "known existing unreferenced BLPs". My concern is a third unquantified group "existing unreferenced BLPs that have yet to be tagged as such". I would like to suggest a compromise, apply option 1 to new BLPs, apply option 2 to the 42,000, but change the bot so that when we identify old unreferenced BLPs it resets the date. Then in a years time when we have dealt with the 42,000 we can decide on a schedule for those we have found in the meantime. Maybe they'll be thousands, maybe tens of thousands or maybe this group will have slowed to a trickle and we can go straight to including them in the sticky prod process. But I don't think we an decide how to treat them until we've quantified them. ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to identify all BLPs that don't have one of the reference templates ({{Reflist}}, </references>, etc.)? J04n(talk page) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the resulting list would be mostly false positives with poorly formatted refs. It would be a place to start, but it would still have to be picked through by hand. Gigs (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to WSC's oppose, I indicated that I would be willing to modify the bot to change the date on the tags to the current date so that the backlog is essentially locked into the current numbers, if there is consensus to do so. However, this would mean that the articles recently discovered, sort of fall into a gray area. They aren't counted as part of the backlog, but they aren't actually new. The bot doesn't keep any statistics, so I looked at the diffs from the last run (the last run didn't finish, but it goes in alphabetical order, so this shouldn't have any significant effect statistics-wise). There were 38 articles changed, 22 were from this month and 2 were from last month, so the remaining 14 were from months prior to 2010. 9 were from 2009, 2 were from 2008, and 3 were from 2007 (the oldest from January 2007). Note that my bot is only tagging the articles with old dates in the cases where the article was only recently categorized as a BLP (but was tagged as unreferenced at the earlier date), so there is also a fourth group - BLPs that have been unsourced for months or years, but have not been tagged as such. When these are tagged by a human, they will have the current date, so they will appear as "new." Mr.Z-man 22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one option would be to simply tag new articles with {{unreferencedBLP}}, rather than {{unreferencedBLP|date=Foo Year}}. A bot would then go around and change the date of all tagged articles to the month of the creation of the article rather than when it was tagged. It would certainly be an anomaly compared to the rest of the tags on the project, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. NW (Talk) 22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see a date in there---even if that date is the date the item is identified as a BLP... eg if we find an unreferenced article that was tagged in 2008 as just unreferenced, we retag it but do so with todays date. If we make it a practice not to tag articles with dates, people will come in afterwards and "clean them up" and we start to have a whole new problem of articles without a tag date.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If new and old articles are treated differently, it's important to get the date right. I feel it would be much fairer for newly tagged old articles to be treated as old for this purpose. Certes (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misunderstood my point, which is likely my fault for not being clear. Say we had an unsourced BLP on someone named Foo Bar that was created in March 2007. Editor Joe Bloke finds this article unsourced and instead of tagging it with {{unreferencedBLP|date=February 2010}}, tags it with {{unreferencedBLP}}. SmackBot (or LaraBot, or whichever one) then comes around and categories the article as {{unreferencedBLP|date=March 2007}}. Let's we have another example. Foo Bar (hockey player) was created in August 2008 and was found in December 2009 to be an sourced BLP. As such, it is currently tagged with {{unreferencedBLP|date=December 2009}}. With my proposal, such a tag would be changed to {{unreferencedBLP|date=August 2008}}, allowing editors to deal with articles that have been unsourced for the longest time first. With this change, we could adopt a clear cutoff – all articles in Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_March_2010 or later would be subject to the BLP prod. NW (Talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not sure if you understand WSC's concern (or mine.) There are several problems with the above scenario. First, one of our concerns is that we have some means of measuring our success against the total population. EG Let's say we are very successful in sourcing articles. Over the next 3 months we succeed in removing 30K articles from the category---during the same time frame, 45K more articles are identified as unsourced BLPs. These 45K unsourced BLPS were previously tagged with just an unsourced tag. Those 45K new articles change the magnitude of the amount of work required. If we tag those articles with the current date, then we can easily tell how we are doing against our target/goal; and we can tell if there was a clean up campaign of old unsourced articles that have been retagged. Second, it has never been a practice to retroactively date items as tagged, doing so would make it look like work is not being performed creating the appearance of a backlog that may not exist. If we could get it down to the point where we do not have any Unsourced BLPs in the category for more than a month from the point they are identified by the wider community, then that is a success. By retroactively tagging articles, we will never be able to measure how we are doing at cleaning up articles once the backlog is solved. There are other reasons I oppose this idea.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right - we'd need both a way to tell whether the article is new or old (so we know what rules it must follow) and a way to tell when it was tagged (so we can measure progress). This could be a template with two date parameters, or more clearly three different templates: old bad article already found, old bad article newly found, new bad article. Certes (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming that Newly created BLPS would be identified at Special:Newpages, and tagged with sticky prods by new page patrollers. There will also be a few created from old redirects, but in the main the ones found by newpage patrol will be newly created, others won't be. Since anyone prodding them or handling the prod should look at the edit history it will be easy to tell if an individual March 2010 unreferenced BLPs is newly created or older. It won't be possible to split them statistically, except by the 8th of the month all unreferenced BLPs from previous months should be old ones. As for how many are out there still to find, no-one really knows. I suspect that if we listed articles without categories (as opposed to tagged with {{uncat}}), and articles with only one category and that either living people or year of birth we'd get loads. Mr Zman gave some figures, but I think this will be variable - someone going through a group like articles created by a particular editor or only categorised as wrestlers will find batches of them. ϢereSpielChequers 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Assuming a way is determined to distinguish newly discovered/tagged unsourced BLPs from both newly created ones and previously tagged ones, can we consider them separately? That is, as falling under neither Part 1 or Part 2 of Ballonman's proposal? Then maybe consider that issue later, such as in at least three months?

In a few months, we'll have an idea of a sustainable rate of fixing, and hopefully an idea of the rate at newly discovered problems. Then maybe a new time frame could be worked out to bring the total to zero.
This is especially worth considering because of how the metrics discussion changed. Most of the discussions about rates concerned how many articles could have been prodded in a given period. Then, what seemed quickly to me, it changed to, x number of articles left to fix at certain periods of time. That change was given little opportunity for deliberation. Maurreen (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE DGG[edit]

DGG has several concerns:

the consensus is definitely not the least clear about any particular time period.

You are correct, there was no firm time frame set. That being said, a year was the most conservative time frame being floated---other than do nothing---that had any support from both sides. Especially as the "deleters" were willing to give us 3 months to prove we could fix the problem before pushing for significant changes.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is also not clear about how to tag BLPs, and this overstates the degree of agreement very substantially.

We could possibly tweak the wording here, is there anything in particular that you would like to have changed? Remember, that Jimbo has said, "I acknowledge that there may be some who believe that unreferenced biographies should be kept on the site permanently, even if no one is willing to improve them. But that battle has been lost. This is a proposal for a way forward for the "fixer and deleter" debate, not the "should Wikipedia keep low-quality biographies" camp. This is a case where, we have to act or the powers that be will act. But even if Jimbo didn't say anything, the stuff around BLP's are changing the expectations are rising.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is also not clear about the relative use of AfD and Prod. And I think there is quite the opposite of a growing consensus that the mass deletion of old BLPs will ever be necessary--what I see is a growing consensus that such action should never be used for any sort of articles.

The use of AFD/PROD are standard tools in the arcenal already. The proposal really does nothing to impact the way things are currently done. A person can already put a prod or AFD tag on a BLP and have it deleted per policy. In fact, the wording once again, while explicitly allowing for both, puts limitations on them. It basically says, yes AFD/PROD will be used but not in mass and within reason. This is policy already. So there is no real change here except for an agreement that PROD/AFD can be used, but not recklessly.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, IMO, the second proposal is a maintain the status quo with a caveat--- the caveat being that the "fixers" really have to get their act together. If the project can clean up the project, then nothing really changes except the project as a whole is improved-particularly in the realm of BLPs. However, if we fail to clean it up, as we are committing to do so here, it will then undermine arguments of the fixers. The Deleters are giving us 3 months to prove them wrong. I have no doubt that many of them are confident that we will fail, but would be happy to proven wrong. The rest of the points in the second bullet are basically the terms of the agreement... they will back off of the CSD/PRODding of OLD BLPs if we can show sustainable and significant work towards cleaning up the project. Rather than leave it vague and open to random interpretation, we've thrown in some metrics that can be used to measure our success/failure. We have to clean up roughly 13K BLPs per quarter. If we can't, we might find ourselves back at another RfC. If we can, then nothing happens. IMO, despite Okip's crying foul, this is a win-win for both sides.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me on my talk page what would be necessary to change to get me to support the proposal.
1. A specific requirement that WP:BEFORE be followed for BLP prods and AfD nominations. -- at least with respect to having made a bona fide look for sources. (considering other alternatives is not that frequent a problem with BLPs). This is the key thing what I meant about "how to tag BLPs"
2. A specific statement that "sticky" means careful follow up, to send the necessary ones to afd, not a prohibition against removing tags from prodded articles. I say the necessary ones to indicate that there will be a large number tagged that do have references.
3. A specific requirement that everyone involved in the article be notified about proposed actions. This should go without saying, but experience shows it needs to be specifically said.
4. Removal of the discussion of the time period. In my opinion deadlines like this set the wrong atmosphere. We've proven we could work very effectively without them. This should not be seen as a challenge about who is right or wrong, but a common effort. We're not playing games (though a contest like Okip's is not out of place for those who like to work that way). Now, I have personally set myself a quota, and so have many others. But not all of the people issuing the challenge have themselves been doing any work on the backlist. To quote a song, "won't ask you nothing I wouldn't do"
5. Specific rejection of the view that this applies to inadequately sourced articles, rather than unsourced. For one things, this was at one point said in the sense of "any article anyone might consider inadequately sourced". For another, very few BLPs are adequately sourced by our ideal standards. Obviously this does not mean that BLPs that aren't sourced sufficiently to demonstrate the notability should be kept as is; rather that they need a try at proper sourcing, & deletion via existing process if the notability is unsourceable, not tried.
I would probably support if even #1 were added. I know there has so far not quite been consensus about literally requiring it for every article, but these are BLPs , after all, and we need to be extra careful. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot ever require anything on a volunteer project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ about that. We can require that people not spuriously tag articles as CSDs, for instance. We can also require that people not serially prod BLPs without regard to whether they can be sourced.--Father Goose (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it would make it harder to delete a BLP than it would any other article. By removing the restriction against removing the tag without sourcing, you're essentially just making it a normal PROD, except that WP:BEFORE would be mandatory. This seems to be saying that as long as its proven notable, it should not be deleted. That, plus removing the deadlines is essentially the status quo. Mr.Z-man 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose any elevation of WP:BEFORE above its current status. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BEFORE would switch around the burden from where it stands. Not an option to me. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't force editors to find sources for the unsourced articles that they create because they are volunteers. And we can't force wikiprojects to source articles that fall under their umbrella because they are volunteers. So it is completely unworkable to force others volunteer contributors to clean up poor quality content that they notice need work and tag for clean up or deletion. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mr.Z-man, 1) BEFORE would not make it harder to delete a BLP. BEFORE would just make deleting the BLP with any new PROD harder than some people would like. 2) If the subject is notable and the article is sourced, why shouldn't it be kept? Maurreen (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can make people do things, if it's a prerequisite to doing something else. You shouldn't post to talk pages unless you're ready to add your signature, you shouldn't add content unless you're going to source it, you shouldn't take administrative action unless you're willing to be available to answer questions and requests over it, and so on. It's very simple. As it now stands, editors who ignore WP:BEFORE by doing serial prods and AfDs of articles that are in fact not deletable under current guidelines generally get a lot of grief, and if they continue after being asked to stop it's considered disruptive. Same thing regarding unsourced BLPs, but note that all of the proposals here do in fact require us to ignore WP:BEFORE. By creating a bright line that unsourced BLPs will either be sourced or deleted, there is no room in that for BEFORE... That's fine if we go about it in an orderly way, which I think is the whole point of the BLP, if you exclude the outliers on both ends (delete on sight, or do nothing). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Maurreen, WP:BEFORE is not required for normal PROD, so requiring it for PROD on BLPs (while at the same time turning BLP-PROD into normal PROD by removing the only substantial difference) does make it harder. The subject being proved notable does not mean that the article is sourced. We have thousands of articles that meet alternate notability criteria that don't require sources. In reply to Wikidemon, BEFORE only applies to AFD, and for that it is not a policy nor guideline, just a recommended procedure. I outlined my objections to making BEFORE mandatory in the section above. Mr.Z-man 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man, we're both right. Apparently, what we were not commenting on the same thing -- me to my original BEFORE proposal, and you to the BEFORE proposal plus DGG's unsticky/less-sticky PROD. Cheers, Maurreen (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing time?[edit]

I made one initial proposals about when to close. My intention was not to set a point at which this would close, but to ensure that it did not close before a specific point.

User:Okip made another proposal. I don't recall the details. But I think it was less specific that mine, and his general intention seemed similar to mine -- essentially to ensure it wasn't closed in haste, that the general community had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the closure proposal(s).

Is it critical to anyone that this is closed at 23:59 tonight? I think most of the major proponents of each side are working together well toward something respectful of each side. Maurreen (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this open for another few days to give me and other new users time to digest the arguments and proposals discussed here? Sapporod1965 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
good idea, there seem to be new responses, and somebody may just possible present a new and convincing argument. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were 400+ editors who commented in the first RFC, before it was preemturely unprecedented closed and only one position was advocated. The only reason I asked for more time, was because based on the sordid history of this RFC, I had a sincere worry that they would close within a couple of hours, and another dubious consensus would be proclaimed. Okip 12:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing items to an archive[edit]

A good majority of this RFC was "archived" I unarchived it, and added discussion top and bottom tags. I am not responsible for creating the large page, a lack of planning in closing phase I (which only advocated one position) did.12:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And since you did such a bad job of unarchiving it, I removed it again. Please create a subpage where the things you want to have easily available are posted once, and link it from wherever it is needed. Fram (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. If you restore the unusable 700k page again, I will reopen the discussion to have you removed from this process - not because of what you are saying, which I haven't read and am not going to, but to prevent technical disruption of this page. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the duplicates. I have never seen another RFC in which editors have removed all of the previous comments during the final phase of voting. Then again, there have been a lot of firsts in this RFC.
What about the original "technical disruption"? Anyone worried about that? And where the hell is everyone's comments now? Okip 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed some of the duplicates, not all of them by far. Fram (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can create a subpage of this rfc and put whatever you want there, and link it from the main page, even, as was suggested. Again, if you make the main RFC page so large that many interested parties are unable to read it, I will suggest you be prevented from further disrupting the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First: what about the original "technical disruption"?
Second: What about the links to these sections which are now broke?
Third: Has there ever, ever been a RFC in which editors delete/remove the comments that editors are supposed to be voting on? <<< This is the most important question.
Fourth: wouldn't a less disruptive solution be to remove the duplicate sections, as I have done? I would have never attempted to imperfectly restore this section if these sections were not "technical disrupt(ed)" in the first place.
The people who are truly disruptive are you two, not me. Okip 12:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"wouldn't a less disruptive solution be to remove the duplicate sections, as I have done? " Okip, please... You didn't remove the duplicate sections, you finally removed some of them after I had to first tell you that your restoration was far from perfect. You achieved to restore a 400K discussion into a 150K discussion and to end up with a 750K result... By the way, the original disruption was done by Maurreen, who can be considered to be generally of the same opinion as you wrt this RfC's result (e.g. she was the one that started the BEFORE discussion). Fram (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly neutral Q&A about proposed closing[edit]

This RFC is too much. What is the nutshell version?

  1. The main proposal is User:Balloonman's Part 1. This would declare a consensus to:
    1. Start a process to delete new unsourced biographies of living people, and
    2. Make our relevant policies and guidelines more strongly against new unsourced biographies of living people.
  2. User:Balloonman's Part 2 would mainly set goals for the community to reduce the number of old unsourced biographies of living people.
  3. User:Okip's alternate closing proposal references an earlier proposal by Bearcat -- essentially to use current policies and procedures, teamwork and new tools.
Don't forget the summary of phase 1, which shaped phase 2 and had about 400 users contribute.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the argument that phase I only had only one position advocated. Okip 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the summary of Part 1 is inaccurate and unreasonable precisely on the recommendations, where Risker has let his preferences outweigh his responsibilities as an admin - as I said at the bottom of the section Balloonman links to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate how? I see a strong consensus (163-35) for deletion of new unsourced BLPs (Jehochman's view), and for not summarily deleting old unsourced BLP's (DGG's view, among others). -- Bfigura (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores all the discussion which is the purpose of a !vote; voting is evil. It also is an idiosyncratic view of a strong consensus; that would be a marginal consensus for the much less important decision of making a bureaucrat. But then that may be expected when people decide that some new machinery is the Most Important Thing; evidence becomes unimportant and opposition is ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how and where do I give my input?

  1. About declaring a consensus for stronger teeth against new unsourced biographies of living people -- Proposal Part 1 -- Agree -- Disagree -- Neutral -- Discussion --
  2. About declaring numeric goals to reduce the number of old unsourced biographies of living people -- Proposal Part 2
  3. About not changing the relevant policies -- Alternate closing proposal


What does "BLP" mean?

Biographies of living people

What is a "PROD"?

PROD stands for proposed deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setreset (talk • contribs) 10:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "sticky prod"?

These would be a variation of the current proposed deletion process. The idea is that new unsourced biographies of living people would be tagged. If a source is not listed in a timely manner (probably a week), the article would be deleted. Unlike the standard PROD process, the tag could only be removed if a source is given in the article. Further details have not yet been worked out.


How would other policies or guidelines change?

New BLP's would be expected to have sources, if they don't they could be prodded for deletion. Old BLPs would essentially be grand fathered in, but with the expectation that they are cleaned up.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 09:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What does the Wikimedia Foundation have to do with this?

To my limited knowledge, there is nothing *specific* from the foundation that is driving the current situation. These two items have some relevance:


Possibly less-neutral Q&A -- What about all the other proposals and discussions?

Earlier proposals for this phase are in the archive.
We are now focusing on the closing proposals.


There is strong momentum to close this RFC and make a decision.
You might use the other related discussions to inform your decision.
But any action will most likely be based on one or more of the closing proposals.
At this point, your input on related proposals would probably be meaningless.
At this point, I have to agree with Maurreen. There was a heavy discussion 2 or 3 weeks ago when the first round of the RfC began. At this point, it hasn't produced any new suggestions or ideas and is losing steam. The stance that is gaining ground is to reach an understanding and start to implement it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 09:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From where I stand and yes ( I am a new editor ), the consensus is almost onesided towards "A little bit more Teeth and reduced Numbers", than "Alternate Proposals" Mlpearc (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Who wrote these answers?

Initial answers by Maurreen (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC) :)[reply]
Where is there evidence that unsourced BLPs are significantly less accurate than sourced BLPs?


New questions

Proposal to keep this RFC open for another week[edit]

I propose that this RFC not close until Tuesday, March 2nd. This will give us more time to study the massive amount of arguments made and also to check the current batch of "referenced" BLPs to make sure they are legitimately referenced. Perhaps some users have "hidden" unreferenced BLPs by giving them bogus references? Sapporod1965 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.
  • why the hell not. Okip 12:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • new phase or keep phase II open: same difference, IMO. If phase III goes ahead I expect those that open it to inform every editor that has participated thus far rather than leaving it to someone else... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep it open. The project page has a lot of lively ongoing discussion. Sapporod1965 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
  • Oppose on grounds that this type of proposal is counter productive. There is no need to set a specific close date and I suspect this conversation will go on beyond the 2nd..---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Comments
  • A while longer, certainly - Okip has only just finished notifying previous contributors who may not seen phase II yet.   pablohablo. 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's give it at least another day or two (and a whole week wouldn't hurt). Lots of editors have contributed for the the first time in the last 18 hours, with both simple !votes and deeper insights across a range of opinions. With those who mainly edit around midnight GMT just about to see their notices for the first time, I'm expecting another busy evening. Certes (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 3[edit]

IMO, I think we should move on to phase 3. I think the first part of my proposal has received enough support and does recognize the consensus that has been developing towards NEW BLPS. I may not fully support BLP-PROD, but with the limitations that it be used on NEW BLPs, it seems to have community support. I think we should move on to phase 3, wherein we try to iron out some differences with and figure out what needs to be done with OLD BLPs. I think there is enough opposition to my summary, which is why I broke it into two parts to begin with, that we cannot close the RfC as is. I do think our focus should be on the OLD BLPs.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most ludicrously confusing issues is that this entire discussion is split between Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, and this, its talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Balloonman, OK, I think two main issues from Part 2 for Phase III are: A) newly discovered unsourced BLPs, and B) the rate.
Maybe it's best to keep Phase III at this page, and just archive Phase II at an appropriate time.
Kudpung, yes, this does and has had some flaws. But we're all human. Maybe as a side thing sometime, some advice could be set up on how to best have effective discussions on complex issues that draw a lot of participation. Maurreen (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment from the peanut gallery, I am interested in this issue, especially at the beginning, but I could not keep up with the volume of proposals, opinions, vote, spats and multiple discussions on multiple pages. It has spun out of control, in my opinion, and only the few who have stayed up on all of the various proposals and counter-proposals, can follow the discussion. Aside from the issue of the BLPs, this raises the question in my mind if there might be a better way to reach "consensus"? This approach DOES seem to be heading towards some kind of reasonable consensus BUT the machinery and process seems overwhelmed. (Sort of like the "dangling chad" election!) --Mdukas (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one answer to move forward to phase three. Since this entire process has been botched from the word go, it should be placed in the trash and emptied. Then, do not restart the process.Trackinfo (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those two issues are key issues, but I'm not convinced we have consensus to even get to that foundation yet.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. I'm not sure what any further work on Part 2 would accomplish right now. Balloonman, like you said somewhere below, the current situation equates relatively to the status quo for at least a few months. But no biggie to me either way. My main goal was to guard against indiscriminate deletion, to ensure that each article has at least reasonable deliberation and opportunity to survive. I think this RFC has led to that result. Maurreen (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an RFC for BLP-PROD and I'm tempted to suggest that we don't need one for timelines either. The longer a discussion goes, the more the result tends toward an even split (in Wikipedia terms, no consensus). There's a pretty clear framework for BLP-PROD from Jehochman's proposal in phase 1. We don't need another month of discussion to settle on the details. As for a timeline, if the current progress stays fairly constant it'll be plainly obvious that efforts are succeeding. Likewise, it'll be obvious if the backlog stops decreasing in any substantial way. I've changed my bot to use the current date (I said I was going to wait for consensus, but no one seems to want to discuss it), so the historic backlog number is essentially locked in. Mr.Z-man 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Z-man, that works for me. Maurreen (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborating -- the people disagreeing with the current Part 2, as far as I can tell, are those against systematic deletion. It appears that at least the major proponents of systematic deletion are willing to hold off for at least a few months concerning already-tagged unsourced BLPs.

So the non-deletion side has nothing to worry about at least as long as sigificant progress is maintained. If not, the issue will be revisited. Maurreen (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be publicly known that this number, while being reduced by actions of editors, is also increasing due to the actions of others. In other words, somebody is adding new prods almost as fast as others are being removed. The number is as artificial as the problem.Trackinfo (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you mean prods and not articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs? If so of course we will continue to have new ones created until we change the rules to stop accepting new BLPs unless they have sources. ϢereSpielChequers 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong choice of jargon--the same kind of jargon that masks intent and confuses most of the participants in this discussion. As this argument deteriorates into the depths of stupidity, you are lucky I have yet to resort to expletives to describe the power-hungry psychotics we have trying to mastermind this takeover.Trackinfo (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phase III -- new unsourced BLPs[edit]

Points to discuss:

  1. Wording of policy changes
  2. "Sticky PROD" -- including:
    1. Time to be in PROD before deletion (one week?)
    2. Any WP:BEFORE-type provisions -- such as compromising by requiring notification of one or more relevant parties Maurreen (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about the position which an equal number of editors support, in which there is no need for new policy, where is this on your list Maurreen? Where was this on Balloonman's list, when the proposal that we don't need any new policies, received the highest number of supports? Okip 03:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that this RfC finds consensus for a sticky prod, shouldn't the closer just point people over to Wikipedia:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs and tell them to develop it there? (Perhaps by noting that there was a consensus for a sticky prod on new BLP articles). After all, there's already an ongoing discussion there. -- Bfigura (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bfigura's idea sounds much better to me. Another RfC? This time probably only populated by the 10 most vocal editors from Phase II? No thanks. NW (Talk) 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point about Wikipedia:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs makes sense.
I agree that we don't need another RFC.
But it might be good to have a central location to discuss wording changes for the relevant policies, stronger statements against new unsourced BLPs, which was also part of Part 1. Maurreen (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding BLP-PROD could probably be on WT:BLP or WT:PROD. The latter is more relevant, but the former would probably have more participation. The only policy (except possibly WP:PROD) that should need any changing is WP:BLP; other changes would be to non-policy "informative" pages like WP:YFA or interface pages shown when editing/creating a new article. Such pages don't need a centralized community discussion for small modifications/additions. I think at this point we have enough community input that we can "disperse" out to already-existing discussion pages for actual implementation details. Mr.Z-man 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on this part; there was no consensus on much of the alleged closure of Part I. This is a small group continuing on indefinitely unless it gets its way with this program, almost irrelevant to the real issue of inaccurate BLPs. The superstition that citation decreases error should be suppressed; citation may decrease the detectability of error, but only if readers do in fact follow our citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did start my sentence with assuming consensus to head off this debate. However, Given that there's currently a 98s/16o ratio to close in favor of a sticky prod (I'm referring to this section), I do think consensus for such a closure exists. Note that this consensus is focused on tagging new articles, not addressing the backlog. Since there's a number of different parts/RfC's floating around, could you be more clear on what you think doesn't have consensus? -- Bfigura (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and there were 163 people who supported a much more liberal BLP-PROD in round 1.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with continuing on the discussion regarding BLP-PROD to phase III. If it has support, we move on to develop it elsewhere. Let's focus on what needs focused on.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further points to discuss:

  1. Many individual editors and wikiprojects are discussing alternative solutions that haven't even be considered yet: User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs, for example.
  2. Strong opposition has been posted on the main project page by several indepentent editors such as User:Okip and User:Jorge Stolfi. Such objections should be given due wieght.
  3. People are tiring of this RfC: they need some strong compelling motive to actually get involved in yet a third stage. What is that compelling motive? Presumeably the universal mass-deletion of any and all unreferenced BLPs tagged with the new and improved PROD...

--Jubilee♫clipman 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, failure to do anything now will result in a defacto acceptance of phase 2! Because I can predict that if nothing happens now and we fail to clean up, that in 3 or 4 months we will be right back here again... and it would not surprise me if it wasn't forced upon us at that point in time. Phase 2 really is the do nothing now proposal!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the #2 above, right? I would agree though that consensus isn't the same as unamimity. While I don't want to steamroll minority opinions, it does seem clear that there's a fairly overwhelming support for sticky prods on new BLPs. (I'd point out that the current support ratio is around 86%, which is enough to elect a 'crat, and damned high for an RfC). --Bfigura (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I am all in favour of continuing this to the bitter end right here and now rather than letting it slip and coming back every 6 months or every 3 years or what-not. Phase III needs to happen, I just think there are far wider issues that need to be addressed than those proposed by Maurreen
@ Bfigura: thanks for moving my sig back to its natural position (you beat me to it, in fact)! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume for the moment that this will close in favor of sticky prod for new articles, and in favor of notifying new editors about the need for refs in BLP articles (ie, in YFA). (Since that seems probable). What exactly do you think needs to be discussed in Phase III. As I mention above, there's already a discussion taking place on BLP-Prods that should probably stay in it's current location. The notification of new editors needs 1 edit to be done. Wikiprojects are great, but don't require an RfC. The only thing that I could think needs to be addressed in a new (ie Phase III) RfC would be what to do with the backlog. Was that your thought? -- Bfigura (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phase whatever you name it, do nothing is the only correct answer . . . now or in the future. If we move on to Phase 3, 4 or 12, that option must remain as the prominent option--the one Balloonman just admits is what Phase 2 is telling us to do. No matter what these other "expletive deleted" future mental patients are trying to propose, we must keep a reasonable option on the table until they get taken away to a happy place in a padded truck.Trackinfo (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an apparent mental patient, lovely categorization by the way, I take note of the fact that there's a 99S/16O ratio for doing something (namely, sticky proding new unref'd BLPs). So, I would suggest that calling the community names because it happens to disagree with you is probably neither the most productive nor insightful way forward. (Or were you referring to another proposal?). -- Bfigura (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do strongly suggest that the positioning of proposals, manipulating of statements, mis-statement, masking, jargon and other devious tactics have misled many sheep who have not participated in the debate. You can see from some of my comments, they even successfully misled me a few days ago, into thinking these were the only viable solutions. As for my categorization of these advocates as future mental patients, no insult was meant toward mental patients. This is consistent with the psychological profile outlined in =Thoroughly disappointed= on the main page. I suggest many of those advocating an increased power-structure (of course with them in charge) and article deletion solutions as their means of enforcement should look firmly in a mirror after reading that. If you miss the point, read it again. It sums up two months of discussion and years of wikipedia administration quite clearly.Trackinfo (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree that before we implement any of this we are going to have a straight up/down vote on the final proposal? I really think we need to see if consensus reaches beyond those who are willing to read through the massive amount of material. Sorry if holding this is either obvious or already discussed, *I* have given up on reading the whole thing. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to repost proposal 1 again and have people recast their votes on it again? As it stands right now, barring a major shift, I would say that we could move forward with proposal 1 related to New BLPs. Old BLPs clearly have no consensus on how (or if) they are to be handled.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to treat this like we are currently doing admin recall. A group (of all interested) discussed a formal proposal and now want to bring an exact policy forward. We don't even have a formal proposal yet, and we certainly didn't have one in phase I. Let's have one or two or three formal proposals, complete with final wording, and see what people think. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, but there are significant differences between this and the various admin recall proposals that have popped up over time. The admin recall proposals are usually generated in a vacuum wherein a few users get together to discuss an issue that has been discussed ad naseum. Very little is done to advertise the issue and almost nobody knows that it is ongoing. This has been announced in several circles and posted in numerous places. There are about 1500 links to the main page alone. It's been regularly mentioned in the SignPost and the Article Rescue Squad newsletter---plus who knows what else. I'm not shutting the door on it, but at the same time, we have to acknowledge that this has had a much higher profile than most RfCs.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the recall proposal has had more !votes total than this one has had. Further, I really don't think _who_ proposes the idea should be relevant here. We really will need a formal proposal and an up/down vote. Hobit (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I could find myself supporting proposals that required WP:BEFORE be followed before applying the super-special-ultra sticky PROD -and- required notification to previous editors -and- provided a reasonable time period for clean up -and- insured the number of such PRODs meant that only 500-1000 or so articles needed to be repaired (or deleted) per week. If the goal is to fix that which can be fixed and delete that which can't I'm fine with it. If the goal is to put all the work on the heads of those that want to fix, and none on the heads of those that want to delete, I have a real issue... — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The present tally on Part I, which is largely on the sticky PROD, is 118-33. That would be sufficient to promote a single admin; but it is not sufficient to change major policy - especially when the poll is on a page set up to encourage the supporters of one side to discuss details. If there were evidence that unsourced BLPs were significantly less accurate than other articles, this might become genuine consensus; but it is not now; it is a bunch of advocates talking to themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of this RFC thus far[edit]

Table of results thus far.

subject Support
(S) 		Oppose
(O) 		Neutral
(N) 		%Support
(%S)
Part 1: Items where consensus seems to be clear 99 16 86%
Part 2: Where consensus isn't quite as clear 48 24 66%
We don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy 62 35 63.9%

Caveat, the math maybe wrong. Okip 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem to be right. Although, I'm not sure that one can do a good comparison based solely on support or oppose percentages. We do it in ArbCom election because everyone is forced to vote for/against/neutral for every candidate, so the S% or O% can be compared across candidates. Likewise, in an RfA/RfB, everyone either votes for or against, so the overall support % can be compared to the hypothetical bar. Here, everyone isn't necessarily voting on every issue, so you would probably need to take total number of votes into account as well as support percentages. (Thankfully the top vote-getter also has the most support in this case, but I just wanted to make the point that for these sort of polls, one can't always solely compare S%'s). -- Bfigura (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, a few of the opposes (particularly for item 1) are "I agree with all of the above EXCEPT for point X."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many of that large number at the top of the relative page are just sheep who haven't read enough or thought enough to think of opposing?Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to assume, in good faith, that everyone cast their !votes exactly where they intended to. People having different opinions to yours is not evidence of them being 'sheep'.   pablohablo. 13:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can assume in good faith that I've not cast any votes in the Part 1 or Part 2 columns because they would seem to detract from the vote for "We don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy" and even if I felt sure what such votes meant to me and wanted to vote for any of them I don't know how they'd be interpreted. Perhaps in future a Bewildered option could help clarify relative percentages and lighten things up with a touch of humor if this sort of thing is normal. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threading here & on the article page is getting hopelessly messed up & Removing sources[edit]

That said, this is my observation on a point which is getting overlooked. (Feel free to move my comment below to a better spot in the discussion threads -- but this is something which will discourage the less dedicated editors who wish to contribute to this discussion.)

There is one kind of unsourced biographical articles on living people which hasn't been considered: when an article of this type has all of its sources removed. We all know that this either happens or can happen due to conflicts between editors. What do we do in these cases from this point forward? Does removing sources immediately allow a different editor, who less than thorough on looking at the history logs to nominate it for deletion? Or is any editor who wants the article deleted first required to restore these sources? What should then happen to the editor responsible for removing these sources? All of the problematic biographical articles can be fixed -- sourced, stubbified, or deleted -- but if we don't give this possibility some thought, we'll find ourselves right back here arguing over the matter. (And tempers being what they are over this policy, good contributors might end up being blocked or banned.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all the sources of an article to nominate it for deletion would qualify as disruptive editing. I think this problem, while it may exist, is too small to try to change the proposal to account for it without screwing something else up. Cases like this can be handled with a degree of common sense, as always. NW (Talk) 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be simplier to just require the articles to be unsourced for at least 7 days before being deleted? --Magicus69 19:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could agree with you about handling this with common sense NW, but after seven plus years on Wikipedia I've grown pessimistic about just how common this common sense actually is. But if the general opinion is that this is too uncommon to worry about, I won't push the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywrch In such case turning the BLP-PROD into a full AfD and put everything on the table. If the removed sources are enough to assert the notability of the subject then you get an useful Keep result. Afterward putting a BLP-PROD on the article that survived an AfD will be very difficult to be justified. --KrebMarkt 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding something like "Substantially removing sources from an article can be considered disruptive editing" to the verifiability page, or somesuch? Maurreen (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the removal of content already considered disruptive when it's not done with a valid purpose? (We do have the whole uw-delete series of warning templates). -- Bfigura (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Substantially removing reliable sources from an article can be considered disruptive editing." I dont think adding such a message is necessary, but if it is added, such messaging should be clear that removing links to blog posts and such is perfectly legitimate action. Active Banana (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things come to light here, although they might be off topic:
  • The threading here & on the article page is getting hopelessly messed up - I'm glad somebody else has also taken the courage to say this.
  • One of the main problems of PROD and AfD is that the taggers are often editors who are far too quick on the trigger, and never even read the articles properly, let alone the histories and/or the talk pages. They appear to still believe a high edit count is the road to barnstars and adminship (and it often is), and will probably not be unduly worried about any new reforms concerning BLPs.--Kudpung (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "removing links to blog posts and such is perfectly legitimate action." Maybe it's best to drop this whole issue. I'm not sure we're getting anywhere or that this is the best venue for this discussion. Maurreen (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I am one editor who most emphatically believes that blogs are completely worthless as reliable sources per WP:CITE, and would need some very heavy convincing otherwise. I generally remove any I come across even if it leaves an article unsourced - most especially BLPs. --Kudpung (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how unsourced is better than poorly sourced. Maurreen (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have a quick look at the blog to see if it cites acceptable sources. One article I've edited (not a BLP) was full of references to a personal site, which was not itself quotable but had a valuable (and free) list of verifiable citations ready to copy to Wikipedia. The solution there was not to delete the references, but to cut out the middle man. Certes (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with Maurreen that this thread is getting a tangled discussion only more entangled. Let's close this thread & discuss the issue elsewhere. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum[edit]

The underlying BLP issue here is whether

1. Unsourced contentious material will remain in Wikipedia

or

2. All unsourced contentious material must be deleted
  • all unsourced noncontentious material must be kept (aside from other policy)

or

3. All unsourced material must be deleted
  • articles are simply larger amounts of material
  • if we are to ensure a completely accurate encyclopedia (of BLPs), then there can be no distinction between articles and material

There can be no compromise between #1, #2, and #3. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration

I feel like a sourcing-Nazi saying this, and I have opposed the deletion of unsourced noncontentious content in the past, but I've come to a bit of an epiphany:

It has always been clear that #1 is not a viable option, but only now are people beginning to do something about it. If #1 is to be avoided, either #2 or #3 must be completely achieved. Proposed solutions are simply methods to attempt #2 or #3, but I worry that they will not be far-reaching enough.

Even though #2 is the status quo, it will never be achieved without tools like flagged revisions. Ensuring that no unsourced contentious material creeps into BLPs cannot be done without human eyes approving every edit. As such, a solution must fully achieve #3.

I'm not sure how this can happen; if WP:BLP is amended to remove "contentious", all editors will be actively removing (purging, if you will) all unsourced material rather than simply unsourced contentious material. Identifying unsourced material is easier than identifying contentious material, and the end result, a trickle of uncaught, unsourced material, is far less "dangerous" than the current trickle of unsourced contentious material (the "dangerousness" of which is debated). The loss of good-faith constructive material, on the other hand, will be momentous.

Hopefully someone can talk me out of my senses; I've come to the point where I view every solution proposed as a failure, and the situation above as unattainable. To say the least, I was happier being blissfully ignorant and minding my own business, rather than that of those biographed herein. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I think that's a false dichotomy. Consider this example, a choice between two possibilities. (1) no dirty dishes should be left on the table after dinner, and (2) no dishes should be left on the table after dinner. Although #1 is clearly the priority, #2 is the only tenable result, because (subscribing to typical modern western table manners) unused tables are not storage places for dishes. However, #2 does not imply "destroy dishes on sight if left on table". "Move dishes to kitchen" is a far better remedy. There is a process for fixing the problem, and we tolerate a less than 100% solution if that means not pissing off the resident or needlessly destroying dishes. Our content and style guidelines are full of admonitions about what we should and should not do. However, no article (not even any featured article) is perfect in that regard. The rules are an ideal standard for what an article should be. The urgency of the problem informs the type of solution. Even the middle-of-the-road proposals here are already a strong response, a path that will take us from 50,000 (?) to probably only several hundred unsouced BLPs. A 100% solution will never happen, even under the strongest proposals. Going from where we are to a 99% solution in six months, while probably only deleting a small portion of salvageable content, is a pretty reasonable middle ground. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of my argument is that all unsourced material is equally "dangerous". Many pro-delete editors have given legal issues as the motive to delete potentially libellous articles (unreferenced BLPs), but it doesn't make sense to fix only the articles that have no sources and not the articles that have one or more. If editors understand this, then proceed by all means, but I worry that many consider an "unreferenced BLP delete" plan to solve this problem entirely, which it does not. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I agree with your crux. But that and related arguments have been brought up. I guess some people are concentrating on articles with no sources because they are easily identifiable. Maurreen (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because a proposal to review all 1,089,051 BLPs at once would likely never even get off the ground. Mr.Z-man 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions in a nutshell - question about a change of Instructions[edit]

Instructions in a nutshell

Please give your input at one of the closing proposals:

  1. About declaring a consensus for stronger teeth against new unsourced biographies of living people -- Proposal Part 1 -- Agree -- Disagree -- Neutral -- Discussion
  2. About declaring numeric goals to reduce the number of old unsourced biographies of living people -- Proposal Part 2
  3. About not changing the relevant policies -- Alternate closing proposal


Would it be possible to add 4, 5 and/or 6? Specifically:

4. Thoroughly disappointed

and/or

5. The honest thing to do would be to declare this RfC hopelessly bungled and start all all over, beginning with the basic questions — like "are unrefernced BLPs a real problem?"

and/or (my preference)

6. Declare a truce and go back to productive editing with no unilateral actions of mass destruction or attempts to coerce editors into participating in some editors pet projects.

Number 6. is not intended to imply discouragement of peaceful, non-harrassing attempts to persuade editors that such projects are important and worth participating in. Frankly, I'm uncertain I really understand the current proposals, as I've not been paying attention to this muddle since the "pause", don't feel in my heart that anything has been legitemate since the "pause" and have doubts about the legitemacy of the RfC's beginning. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think it would be a bad idea to alter the instructions after the bulk of voters have !voted. (Basing that on the slowing rate of !votes). -- Bfigura (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers 4, 5, and 6 are all functionally the same as number 3, in that they all result in doing nothing new after the RFC ends. Mr.Z-man 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was Billy Idol. Maurreen (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived[edit]

I archived two of the smaller proposals I created. I will ask the bullypedia editor to archive or move his comments to this talk page. Okip 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand! Sapporod1965 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are we doing?[edit]

The RFC has been going 6 weeks now, and any useful discussion has long stopped. It's time to either take some action, or not, in which case we are back where we were on 21 Jan. Back then, I was urged to find a "less chaotic" manner in which to proceed. I consider that pausing while the RfC took place covers that request. So, is there anyone willing to call the "consensus" on this? Kevin (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term is filibuster. There's obviously a consensus for sticky-prod, I say do that now. If not, I fear we're back to speedy deletions, which would be highly unfortunate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You fear we're back to speedy deletions?? Speedy deletions have been emphatically rejected by the community. Who is this "we" you're speaking of? I know I shouldn't continue to be shocked by this arrogance, but I guess I just can't help it. Just because arbcom gave you its blessing once doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to go rogue whenever you feel like it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree re the consensus for new BLPs to be prodded, however I'm also concerned about the current backlog, which I'm not willing to just let lie. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, you can help source them. Maurreen (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog is down by over 20% in the last 6 weeks. That shows tremendous progress. Karanacs (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.
The thing to do now is to set up, or finish setting up, the sticky prod procedures. Maurreen (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If not, I fear we're back to speedy deletions, which would be highly unfortunate". Indeed it would, for everyone involved. Could someone point me to a summary of where the sticky prod procedure was outlined/defined?--Milowent (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The details haven't been worked out. Or are you looking for something more general? Maurreen (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general outline and !vote are at: Proposal Part 1 -- Agree -- Disagree -- Neutral -- Discussion
Clarifying -- The support for "sticky prods" I have noted pertains specifically to new and unsourced WP:BLPs. Maurreen (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for old BLPs seems to be for numerical goals to work that to zero, focusing on fixing, revisiting the issue later if needed. Any other deletion of old BLPs would be handled as any other non-BLP article. Maurreen (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an important point. Anyone who uses sticky prods on old articles (currently tagged as unsourced or newly tagged as unsourced) is going against the concensus developed here. If the work on the backlog slows dramatically, there appears to be concensus for applying procedures to keep it declining, but I don't think those procedures have been agreed upon. Jogurney (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? Is there some organised plan to deal with the backlog that I'm not aware of? Kevin (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reviewing Balloonman's summary of consensus on the RfC page. Opposition to the use of sticky PROD on the backlog is nearly universal as long as such significant progress continues to be made in eliminating the backlog. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just get sticky prods going for new unreferenced BLPs? I realsise the consensus on old stuff is more unclear. But can we get on with what we can?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its about time to move forward with the caveat that there is no consensus to use sticky prods on old articles. Jogurney (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this has been open for almost a month, I've asked for a closer on AN. (A month would be the 6th, and I figure it would take a few days before someone volunteers for the task, so this would then close on the typical 1-month timeline for RfC's). -- Bfigura (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never, and as I am getting totally confused, I will state this here: I support sticky PROD, and as far as I can see, it seems to be the only kind of consensus, althogh not perfect, that is going to move us towards some actual implementation of any positive decision. otherwise we'll continue to be suck in the mire.--Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB[edit]

I'm going to bring up a bone of contention here. We could eliminate, relatively rapidly, several thousand entertainment unreferenced BLPs by accepting IMDB credits, which are the reference for the majority of many of these articles. It is the only source in a huge number of entertainment articles that have not been noticed as having "not having" sources. Oh gee, I just opened up an avenue for these (@#$%#)s to ADD to the unreferenced BLP totals. I have removed the unreferenced BLP tags, to match many established articles. Other people have done exactly that. And there is a crew of deletionists who are following our path and reverting the edits, replacing the unreferenced BLP tags. For all our work, the number fails to go down. When this (@#$%) sticky PROD idea gets implemented, then those TAGs will turn into PRODS, the clock is ticking on each one of these articles. The kiss of death. By someone deciding that the most commonly used reference for entertainment figures is not acceptable as a source--even though it IS the source in the articles and is A SOURCE to reference the unreferenced BLP--they are writing their own script to delete articles. I've probably seen a hundred of these IMDB-referenced, unreferenced BLP articles from people I've actually heard of: former A list or current B list celebrities, producers, directors or writers of shows people have actually seen. This may sound like minutia, but this is the unfair fight we have on our hands. I hope you see it could very quickly degrade into deleting thousands of entertainment articles stupidly and needlessly. It will all be an embarrassing solution to solve irrational paranoia.Trackinfo (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. We don't make it one in order to get numbers down.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the proposed sticky-prod would only apply to new BLP's, not pre-existing ones, so no existing tags will be changing. -- Bfigura (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say that now, but there is still a plan to revisit in a couple of months to do that to existing articles if the number doesn't go down. I say that because the deletionists are making such an effort to PREVENT the number from going down--to achieve their goal: to make deletion easier, and through this new, sourcing PROD that does not go through the same system as AfDs. So they have designed a new way to sidestep as many watching eyes as possible. Beat down the resistance and clear the path.Trackinfo (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is user-contributed contents— it cannot be taken as a reliable source even bending the guidelines so far they collapse unto themselves. If the only source of a BLP is an IMDB blurb, then the article does not have reliable sources and should be axed. — Coren (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unsourced" is not the same as "poorly sourced." Maurreen (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, can be almost no better. Or is myspace better than nothing?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, zero reliable sources is exactly equivalent to zero sources. Or can I just make some web page up on a host somewhere where I make up information about some obscure person then I can just create an article and call it "sourced" because I link to my random website? — Coren (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of this RFC has been *unsourced* BLPs.
If you want to make another RFC on IMDB as a source, that's up to you. If you wanted to specify in this RFC that changes should be made concerning poorly sourced BLPs, you are late. This RFC does not support what you suggest. Whether you gain support outside of this RFC is another matter. Maurreen (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there already is one. I believe it's Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Content. Seems due to close as no consensus. -- Bfigura (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(D'oh, I think you're already aware of that one. But as far as IMDB being unreliable goes, I don't think that's anything new. As far as I'm aware, it's an operating consensus, at least from what I've seen at AfD and RSN. -- Bfigura (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I realize the problems with IMDB. My point is that IMDB sourcing is insufficient cause to summarily delete an article, such as through the pending sticky prods. AFDs are standard process with deliberation. Maurreen (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. If I add a MySpace link to an unreferenced BLP, is that enough to prevent a sticky prod deletion? How about we draw the line at what we consider a reliable source, not something else entirely. NW (Talk) 03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems their writing credits work differently. I suppose it (MySpace) would be self published then. It doesn't seem agreement is universal they're never acceptable. –Whitehorse1 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to make sense to me. I would imagine that we would want the tag to say something like "...this tag may be removed when reliable sources are added". Otherwise we don't have any verifiability and haven't gained anything. (That said, that would still allow at least a week or so for sourcing). -- Bfigura (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source and should not be accepted, even by a weak consesus as one just to apply some cosmetics to the statistics.Kudpung (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, IMHO, there are only two kinds of sources, proper ones according to Wiki rules, or none at all. 'poorly sourced' is just another invented term to allow bending of the rules according to WP:STONE and or WP:IAR. No newbie can really igniore the Encyclopedic content must be verifiable note below every editing window, and there is no excuse for it.--Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to google any of these names, the first, or certainly one of the first things that comes up, behind wikipedia, is the IMDB. It is the standard of the industry--almost essential and certainly accepted as corroborating for any entertainment resume. It is not treated, within the industry, on anything near the same level as myspace or facebook. What other industry wide standard can you name? Your efforts to discredit this major source used within the industry are a sham to discredit articles, in order to delete them to suit your own pathological desires to control information--which Jorge Stofi and I have outlined on the main page. The fact is IT IS A SOURCE. An article using IMDB as the source of a list of credits IS NOT UNSOURCED. You, in the same addled wisdom that want to delete useful information, want to discredit it in order to achieve a demented goal.Trackinfo (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time this issue comes up, the answer tends to come out the same way. IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical info, but it is generally pretty reliable when it comes to filmography info. To paint IMDB as categorically unreliable is unwise; IMDB says what the source of their credits info is (on-screen titles, mostly), but they don't say where the other info comes from.--Father Goose (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the crux of the matter - at least for some films, the *filmography* in IMDB is reliable. (I think they have some content deal with a source for films in the US). If the article says "person X played role Y in film Z", that SHOULD be a statement that can cite IMDB as a reference. But this is not a discussion that can be resolved on this RFC. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The film credits and some of the actor data goes through a verification process before it will ever appear on an IMDB page. IMDB verifies this info by either checking film credits, or contacting involved persons/corps (studios, agents, et al). If the info is found to be inaccurate, it does not get listed. For this kind of data, IMDB has some of the best/accurate info on the internet (I've frequently seen NYT give wrong movie data info whilst IMDB maintained accuracy). To ignore this is just dumb.
     The problem that IMDB has is where it comes to other info it lists (user contrib bios and trivia, the discussions found at the bottom of the pages, etc). These bits are user contribs, and unfortunately, IMDB doesn't make a sharp separation between user data and verified data.
     IMDB should be a legitimate source for info such as film credits (actors, directors, release date, etc.). But, any reference found on a WP article that uses other IMDB content (public user contribed data) should be removed from the article. If a better source for that statement of an article can not be found, that statement should be deleted (not the article).
     For disclosure, I have had experience in the acting/movie sphere, so I have personally dealt with this stuff (and, in case anyone had concerns, I have not made edits to my own WP page). — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#IMDB as a source? for a discussion about establishing a policy, guideline or central discussion on IMDB. Maurreen (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal needs a FAQ[edit]

I came across this proposal a couple of days ago. I've read through the RFC and the subsequent debates. But I can't find answers to some simple questions. Since so many experienced people have put so much time into this, I'm sure the answers are out there. But I can't find them. I think this proposal needs a FAQ.

For example, why focus on deleting articles, rather then deleting the unreferenced content in them? In the time it takes to add a template, an editor can just "shift-delete" any unsourced content that is even remotely questionable. Like this edit. Our policy on verifiability already allows for this sort of editing, without the overhead of adminship and the entailing burden it puts on admins.

The only difference between deleting content and deleting an article is that the history page still exists for an article that is not deleted. But anyone who has spent a few idle minutes on vandal-watch knows there is alot of "questionable" material in a history file. And that's not just limited to articles tagged with "BLP". You know what I mean.

Needless to say, removing content may be objectionable to other editors, and this may lead to a need for RfC, admin help, etc. But so does putting a PROD template on an article.

I understand these are simple, noob questions from a noob at this debate. But there are many of us noobs out there, with alot of noob questions. We need a FAQ.--Work permit (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a focus on deleting articles, at least in the sense that I don't think there's a consensus for it (largely because raise the point you just made). The only thing that seems to have consensus (based on !votes) at the moment (at least to my biased eyes) is sticky prods for new BLPs lacking references. As for why, you'd probably have to ask the editors who support such a proposal, I imagine they'd each have different reasons. I'm not sure that we can, or need to, try and read minds. (My reason for supporting a sticky prod is that if we can't find any sources for a BLP, it isn't verifiable, which means we shouldn't have an article on it.) -- Bfigura (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that the purpose is a "sticky prod". But the purpose of a "sticky prod" is to ultimately delete the article, isn't it? I used to spend my time trying to delete articles. I found over time its just easier to remove the content and leave a stub (except of course the CSD's you come across vandel-watch). Life would be even easier if you made even more clear that the the 3rr rule allows for the removal of unsourced information on living people. Clearly I must be missing something. Thanks for the comment, I don't feel quite so stupid now.--Work permit (talk) 06:07, 4 March
Well, that or to force it to be sourced in a given timeframe, yes. (I think some people were motivated by the idea of preventing growth of the unsourced-BLP-backlog). I can only speak for myself, but I don't really see the point of an unreferenced BLP stub. If someone is so utterly non-notable that I can't find a single reference for them, it's probably not worth having the article around at that point. (I'm not going to jump straight to delete, but I would sticky-prod something I can't find a ref for in the hope that someone else would). My main reason is the potential harm (small stub that no one's watching is a good place for persistent vandalism that'll return at the top of a google query for the person), but I also think it's worth sticking to verifiability and notability for BLPs on principle. Just my $0.02. -- Bfigura (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point that a stub can turn sometime later into a "vandal-magnet". I hadn't considered that. Perhaps sticky-prod can solve the problem you mention. I just get the sense that "sticky prod" could become an "AfD magnet". And when it does, I have to write up why the BLP is non-notable, "defending myself". Someone may then come out of the wood-work and find a source I didn't, making me feel like an idiot. Or someone may find a source I did as well, a marginal source that says nothing, and we end up with "no consensus". Even when I "win" I feel like I didn't really accomplish anything. Most of the time, I end up feeling like a "deletionist pig-dog", even though I spend most of my time trying to fix articles, not delete them. And this is to say nothing of wasting an admins time sorting through all this. But when I just delete bad content, three things happen. Usually, nothing. Sometimes, someone adds something with a source, which leads me to do the same. We go back and forth, and a real article emerges. Sometimes, some nut-job starts ranting, does stupid things, and soon gets banned with little overhead. All in all, deleting bad content has been, for me, a pleasurable experience.--Work permit (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add the caveat that I delete obvious vandal article creations with no compunction, problems, or overhead. I assume this RfC is not meant to address those articles.--Work permit (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Work permit, The focus on the issues that are supposed to be the topic(s) of this RfC and its talk page have already got so clouded, side-tracked, and confused, that hardly anyone, including us seasoned editors, can now see the wood for the trees. Don't worry about being made to look an idiot on Wikipedia, it happens all the time and you need a thick skin not to get upset. Much of the nastiness is done by the kind of ignorant adolescent yobs who hurl abuse at the Nobel laureate who post anonymously here!, just because they can get away with it. As regards your attitude towards deleting or not of BLPs, you will be pleased to know that I go about it in very much the same manner, which I believe to have tried to support in some way or another on the dozens of sub-debates, so called conclusions, and other statistic gathering, on this and its accompanying page.--Kudpung (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually quite simple, for all the words that have been written. There is a faction who are looking for new excuses and ways to delete articles. They are using the "unreferenced BLP" as their target, because of fear of liability for wrong information, as though adding a source will somehow prevent that from being the case. Bots and lazy editors have already marked many of these articles with a tag. There were well over 50K 2 months ago, we're down to 40K now. Now this faction wants to elevate this to a PROD (if that number doesn't go down sufficiently), with a time limit that will ultimately delete the article in X number of days if it isn't sourced. This will be a separate system to the normal AfD, simply based on sourcing, rather than notability. My summation is obviously from the opposing side. I feel all this is paranoia based and is using a forced solution with a deadly threat, instead of just reading the articles (x40K). Sourcing can be accomplished by google and editorial labor. The complainers go beyond lazy, not only not reading the articles, but defending those articles to keep that tag and continue their jeopardy to ultimately be deleted. This is their great compromise off of an earlier position that articles should be deleted by the thousands, simply because they have the tag. I'm sure this quick analysis will get other interpretations, but in all seriousness this isn't a real problem, its a made up problem to remove and control the number of articles. They wouldn't be nearly as interested in this process if it didn't include that threat.Trackinfo (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but I've outlined my motives above. I'm sorry you feel that those supporting this proposal are driven entirely by bad faith, laziness, and deletionism (fwiw, I don't really support automated deletions). I do contest the idea that this is somehow made-up though: yesterday a BLP made it onto DYK and falsely accused the subject of murder. An article that makes DYK is on the main page for 6 hours, which typically implies 250,000 potential page-views. This certainly isn't the only example, simply the most recent. -- Bfigura (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny too, how some people don't even read the postings on this page and its parent properly. I stand accused with almost WP:CIVIL wording as being one of the very brain tormented, trigger-happy, deletion demented teenagers in haste for a high edit count, that I am so sick and tired of having to use pansy language to avoid them complaining about me while all the while they resort to obscenities and think it's cool. There is so much talk here of en bloc mass deletion, and all out permissiveness, that little thought is given to a middle of the road approach from both sides. Every time an attept is made, it is hastily smothered by one or other of the clans of extremists.--Kudpung (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second Kudpung and vote for middle-of-the roadism. Please, let's focus on the issues at hand. Maurreen (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. So what do you think of my proposal? Create a FAQ for this RfC? Each question limited to one or two sentences. One response in support of the the proposal, limited to a short paragraph. One response against the proposal, with the same limit. Existence of such a FAQ would be very helpful for the vast majority of editors like us who are not versed in the topic. It may help those more versed as well. The proposal is simple: Articulate easy to understand answers to simple questions. Clearly, this should be easy to do. I'll add that if this is not easy to do, we have deeper problems on our hands. I'll start with the obligatory:

  • Support: Questions limited to two sentences, preferably one. One paragraph answer in support of the proposal. One paragraph response in opposition to the proposal.--Work permit (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next step(s)[edit]

Does anyone know the relationship between Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people and Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs? Should the focus now move to one or the other? Maurreen (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly done in good faith, the proposals were an attempt to jump the gun on this RfC by those who were (quite understandably) fed up of waiting for something to happen. I think there are lessons to learn from both of them, but as far as actual policy goes they are redundant to the outcome here. WFCforLife (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a consensus for some kind of sticky BLP prod, and obviously we need to work out how to implement this. Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people seems to cover the backlog part that has not gained consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs is a fairly well fleshed out PROD process, separate from WP:PROD.
As for what PROD system to use, there are advantages to both. The separate system will not break WP:PROD which is working well, but adds a new process for people to learn. Using a modified WP:PROD has the advantage that there is no new layer of bureaucracy and WP:TWINKLE will probably be easier to adapt (I think?). I'm more in favour of modifying WP:PROD at this point, with these guidelines:
  • (New) unsourced BLPs may be proposed for deletion
  • The PROD tag may not be removed from an unsourced BLP
The PROD tag would need modifying to a friendlier version explaining sourcing etc. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about Twinkle. I'm open. And now I'm moving on. :) Maurreen (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later, if there is a consensus to PROD the backlog, the "New" qualifier can be removed. Better IMO than 3 different procedures. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be simpler to keep the current WP:PROD as is, and use something else. The current PROD is one of the most simple cut-and-dry things on WP, and it would be great to keep it that way.
Also, having something focused on our new process would allow those people with special interest in that not to be distracted from other stuff.
About your concern about keeping the number of procedures down, we could call the new one "sticky prod" or some such. That would allow it to incorporate any future rationale. Maurreen (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason is the Twinkle thing, as it is very useful for tagging, and notifying the author. It is important that we make it as easy as possible to get the article fixed. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adapt PROD. People understand the system and are aware of it - a simple change such that PROD may not be removed from an unsourced BLP will not be tricky to understand, and Twinkle could automatically alter the prod notice to this effect by working off Category:All unreferenced BLPs (a bot might even be able to revert if the only edit is to remove the prod template from an unsourced BLP). Fences&Windows 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bots reverting, ever. There are too many complaints on this page, as it is, of bots having tagged pages which actually have sources; a bot that reverts efforts to correct that should get its maker banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest and action[edit]

The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things, of ships, and shoes, and sealing wax, of ancient BLPs and future things...
This whole discussion project has got bogged down because it is trying to do too many things at once:

  • What to about old unsourced BLPs (policy)
  • How to do it (types of bots, tags, welcomes, warnings, Wiki software programmation, etc.)

and

  • What to do about future unsourced BLPs (policy)
  • How to do it (types of bots, tags, welcomes, warnings, Wiki software programmation, etc.)

and in two places simultaneously: an RfC page, and a talk page. Also, if we believe the crap, there are a couple of mafia bands who are planning the future of these issues among themselves by email.

Kebvin seems to have synthesized to situation quite accurately,; Maureen is doing his/her best gto keep us on track, and In my opinion, there has been enough talk on both pages and it is time to split these topics off into the four clearly defined areas above, and most importantly, on separate taskforce project pages and not here all over again. The whole idea is to put an end to this confusing melee. If anyone is interested in a kind of "interest" barometer, this list might reveal something. Caution is advised however, because I have not looked more closely at these users, or their user boxes, or their work, or their individual comments on thes BLP issues. For example, the lists could ironically be very heavily drawn from one extreme faction or another. All I know (from memory) is that Maurreen and I seem to favour a middle of the road approach for the treatment of both old and new BLPs.
My suggestion therefore is that some task forces should now be formed for the above four topics, and while the discussions could be going on simultaneously, there is not much point in wasting much time on the How to tasks until the policy issues have been cut, dried, and hung out for display, or on wasting breath by speculating on the outcomes, or preempting the strategy and tactics of any of the topis. The task forces should preferrably be drawn from volunteer users who really do have some time to dedicate to these issues, and contribute seriously and civilly. (yes, it has to be said). Nothing precludes the possibility of a user working on one or even all of the task forces.

Top 21 Talk page contributors
  1. User:Okip 76
  2. User:Maurreen 58
  3. User:Balloonman 42
  4. User:Bfigura 21
  5. User:Kudpung 19
  6. User:Trackinfo 18
  7. User:Mr.Z-man 18
  8. User:Sapporod1965 11
  9. User:Fram 11
  10. User:Dibrisim 10
  11. User:Kevin 10
  12. User:Certes 10
  13. User:Scott MacDonald 9
  14. User:KrebMarkt 9
  15. User:Hobit 8
  16. User:NuclearWarfare 8
  17. User:M.nelson 8
  18. User:Rd232 7
  19. User:Pohta ce-am pohtit 7
  20. User:Wikidemon 7
  21. Three users share this position.
Top 21 RfC pagecontributors
  1. User:Okip 179
  2. User:Balloonman 74
  3. User:Maurreen 74
  4. User:Gigs 59
  5. User:Bearcat 57
  6. User:Mr.Z-man 51
  7. User:Coffee 43
  8. User:WereSpielChequers 38
  9. User:Ikip 35
  10. User:Jclemens 33
  11. User:Kevin 29
  12. User:Fram 28
  13. User:Jogurney 27
  14. User:Peter cohen 26
  15. User:Cybercobra 25
  16. User:Jorge Stolfi 25
  17. User:Kudpung 25
  18. User:NuclearWarfare 24
  19. User:Kasaalan 22
  20. User:Pmanderson 25
  21. User:DGG 25

Off you go! --Kudpung (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want this done, create four subpages, each with a signup sheet. I will sign up on the future one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up[edit]

Ciao. Maurreen (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Kudpung (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't--Work permit (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of new "sticky" dated BLP-PROD[edit]

Since there is at least consensus for having a sticky BLP-PROD on all NEW unsourced BLPs, I propose we complete the template and start using it. The rest of this RfC can be hashed out separately. To do this, we must agree on the wording. We have {{Prod blp}} and {{Dated prod blp}}, as substituted (and modified from discussion) below. Any wording changes? -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Template example moved to workshop page at WT:BLP PROD TPL)--Kudpung (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple small changes. We probably should indicate that the template may be removed from old unreferenced BLPs, because it's likely that it will be used by users not aware of the current consensus against its use on these articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template is only for NEW BLPs (created after March 1, 2010?), and should have nothing to do with the old backlog. So yes, the template wording should make that clear. -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus; that is a disruptive falsehood. For that matter, there is no such policy; WP:BLP says what it always has: Remove any contentious material which is unsourced; which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or which relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability (though see self published sources, below).
Even more seriously, this makes a legal judgment that having footnotes will avert legal liability. This would be unwise wording even if it were the case; and it seems as unlikely as the folk-myth about the saving effect of alleged. If a footnote was enough, anybody could with impunity reprint any libel he found on the internet. Is there a source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for assuming consensus. Regardless, can we work on the wording of such a template to help form consensus? Is the wording above better regarding the legality? I would like to have SOME justification in there to make it less BITEy. -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is that biographies of living persons must be written with great care and strict adherence to our content policies. Unsourced biography articles do not meet this standard. If you can address this problem by providing reliable sources, please do so and remove this tag. seems unobjectionable; if it requires motivation, then decency requires not telling falsehoods about living people.
Note also the recurrent problems with tagging articles that actually have sources, due largely to mindless bot usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, could you please modify the first part then? I think it is really important to have a personable, polite tag for something that's going to go on a lot of new articles created by new users, and some short justification or explanation of our strict policy is in order here. The bot tagging problem should be addressed elsewhere, this section is just intended to work on designing the template, not for discussing its implementation. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this version? --Bfigura (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Template moved to workshop page at WT:BLP PROD TPL)--Kudpung (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also taken out the challenged legal bit. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your wording better than mine, in addition to the date change -- Bfigura (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but it doesn't explain WHY BLPs are special. Some sort of helpful explanation for people who find their new article tagged would be great. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does say "Biographies of living persons must be written carefully, neutrally and citing reliable sources." I doubt that many people will need an explanation of that, and those that will won't be happy with a mere "Wikipedia has decided that" answer. ϢereSpielChequers 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we collaborate on the actual template page? It seems silly to be doing this here instead of just working with the live version. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for doing it here is that this page is actually on several people's watchlist; of course, I suppose some might think this the reason for not doing it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally on your side in this debate - please don't suggest that I'm trying to get things deleted behind people's backs. I think it's easier to collaborate when people make changes directly on the template rather than copy-pasting the wikicode here over and over again. In any event, many changes here will have already pinged the watchlisters (including me). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence yet that unsourced BLPs have significantly more errors than sourced BLPs? Is there any sign that the list of unsourced BLPs has stopped decreasing? In short, is there any actual reason for this template? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the part 1 consensus on the main page. We're waiting for a closer, but I think the writing is on the wall here. If the closer says there's no consensus, this can be scrapped, but I think that's pretty unlikely. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. At present, it's a !vote with 78% support. -- Bfigura (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it; I've taken part in it; and 118-33 is not consensus - especially on a page set up to encourage one side of an issue to talk to itself, shutting out the rest of Wikipedia. 78% would be marginal to choose an admin; not enough to choose a bureaucrat. Consensus is general agreement, which this proposal does not have; if there were any evidence this would improve things, that might change, but that question is invariably ducked, as Calliopejen just has. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't really agree, especially with the idea that this was set up to shut people out. Still, I'm content to wait for someone neutral to decide this. -- Bfigura (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, usage of the template can be discussed in the above RfC. Perhaps this here should serve as a big pointer to the actual template {{Dated prod blp}}, where the collaboration should take place. Also note the template is not used or linked to currently. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PMAnderson's addition of "this is intended to prevent falsehoods about living people from appearing in Wikipedia" is exactly what I was looking for, thanks. -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instituting such a policy without a WP:BEFORE standard is the height of laziness. But this is the railroad to deletion I have expected all along--because the results were predetermined. Welcome to the WWE. Whether the majority was 51%, they would still claim victory and put this in, because that is why they created this discussion. Assuming this faction is going to force this through no matter what we say, here are some questions: Who is allowed to place this sticky PROD (any IP address, a new-registered editor with no history, an editor with x umber of edits, or an administrator)? Where are these articles going to be displayed? How is a member of the general public, the editing community, or more specifically, well-meaning members of the Article Rescue Squad (WP:ARTICLERESCUE) going to find this list of articles in jeopardy? Are the editors who have worked on this article going to get notified? Is the WP Project that applies to this subject going to get notified? Is there a limit to the number of articles that can be deleted in a period of time, or can some (@%$#) write a bot that will overwhelm us, resulting in the needless deletion of innocuous articles? And only a week's time? How many WP editors check WP that often? I've said it numerous times, I've been ignored. You are putting in a poorly conceived, unnecessary new system. Congratulations.Trackinfo (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, we're trying to work out the details of such a system now. I imagine this would work just how current prods work, with notification and a category of articles in jeopardy etc etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of the RfC, you haven't been ignored, and I think you raise very valid points. I thought that working on the mechanics of the article text might help isolate and clarify this portion of the discussion. Also, I'll be busy and away from the computer for probably a few days, but my little stint on this RfC has been fun, thanks! I've been a very part time editor since 2005, it was fun to get into the nitty-gritty and try to help out for a bit, and I learned a lot about WP. -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a template for notifying editors generated by this, I would hope that if anyone was using this tag and not notifying good faith authors they would at least get trouted. If this is only for newly created articles then the process should be self limiting, though if someone used a bot to create 3,000 new unreferenced BLPs I suspect someone else would create a bot to tag them. As for seven days, I predict that most of these tags would be placed by the New Page patrollers within hours of the article being created. Thats why it is essential that if we do this we change the new page creation process to make it clear that we require sources on new BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can add a sentence, as at WP:AN3, where the nominator supplies a diff of his notification. That should also slow down the WP:IDONTLIKETHIS nominations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added, and a claim of WP:BEFORE, which the nominator should be complying with in any case; it is, after all, policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the notification diff be an argument to {{prod blp}}. I'm not sure how to do this myself; but it ought to be a simple argument pass. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a diff is necessary - I'm sure we can have a bot automate notifications to ensure that people are aware of what's going on. Also, I think more discussion is needed about whether this tag is seen as an exception to WP:BEFORE or not. I get the sense that's how people view it, though you obviously disagree. I don't think the tag page should be used as the place to hash out these policy issues at this time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then writing the tag is premature; either this wording bashes out policy issues, or we leave this until the bashing is done elsewhere. The wording I found assumed policy decisions (even assuming the existence of a sticky Prod in the first place) with which many editors will disagree. To insist on wording it that way will be seen as a railroad, because it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This entire process has been a railroad, which I have said many times. It is completely unnecessary for new articles because we already have the AfD process that can handle it. If a specific article is unreferenced, it is impossible for it to justify the WP:N Notability standard (not that I agree with said standards). Period. On AfD, lots of eyes will get to look at the article. People on AfD watch will double check sources, work on the article will happen. If it still fails, you successfully get an article deleted and can count up your brownie points. Inventing another process to sidestep that path is just finding a new secret way to delete articles where you think fewer people might be watching. So simply put, if you find a NEW BLP or even an OLD BLP that has no sources, ram it through the regular AfD. The rest of this discussion has been a sham to invent new ways to ultimately delete articles.Trackinfo (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the clear, unambiguous consensus? Until the consensus has been officially declared, wrapped up, and archived, you are all wasting your time working on this template, and in any case, the place for it is not here. To use this page for such a discussion is subversive, and is the very cause of complaint by so many intelligent participants have now abandoned this debate.
Ironically, I support the idea of the sticky template, but only if fundamental discussion page rules can be respected. What you guys are doing needs a separate workshop page as mentioned above (You did read it , didn't you?)...--Kudpung (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce workshop:

  • If you wish to continue pure technical programmation development of the template, please do it and discuss it at WT:BLP PROD TPL
  • Please keep any discussion and comments on the policy of its use on this talk page here.
  • Do bear in mind that some users may not consider the development exercise to be appropriate until a consensus has clearly been reached and officially closed.

--Kudpung (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwide policy polls should be re-voted and rewieved periodically between 1-5 years[edit]

Since users began debating whether we close debate or not, a limited debate by limited number of users who can only read a limited part of the long proposals and debates in a limited time for wiki-wide concerns is another form of self insisted oligarchy. Do not offer re-proposals after archival, which will waste double effort. So

  • Create a process where established users can re-vote and review important wiki-wide policies periodically each 1-5 years by a automatic review process, and make voting and debating processes easier for a much wider participation.

After community de-adminship and BLP voting processes, it is the best approach we can do. Kasaalan (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion, but perhaps it's a topic for an entirely separate RfC - see exactly these discussion problems in the PEOPLE JUST DON'T LISTEN posting below.--Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE JUST DON'T LISTEN[edit]

The tag templates are nice, but the developer is obviously running away with something that I disctinctly outlined and warned against in the post immediately preceding the new section. Some of the top , and most reasonable contributors are now running away from this discussion with comments like: I've decided the page and the situation are too messy for me right now. Not good for me. exactly because of things like this.

  • This is not the place to discuss the tag itself . See the points you missed here again;

This whole discussion project has got bogged down because it is trying to do too many things at once:

  • What to about old unsourced BLPs (policy)
  • How to do it (types of bots, tags, welcomes, warnings, Wiki software programmation, etc.)

and

  • What to do about future unsourced BLPs (policy)
  • How to do it (types of bots, tags, welcomes, warnings, Wiki software programmation, etc.)

- and in two places simultaneously: an RfC page, and a talk page. Also, if we believe the crap, there are a couple of mafia bands who are planning the future of these issues among themselves by email. This was all due to the (good faith) discussion starter choosing a title that was far too broad in its scope for one single discussion.

Kevin seems to have synthesized the situation quite accurately,; Maureen was doing his/her best gto keep us on track, and In my opinion, there has been enough talk on both pages and it is time to split these topics off into the four clearly defined areas above, and most importantly, on separate taskforce project pages and not here all over again. The whole idea is to put an end to this confusing melee.

My suggestion therefore is that some task forces should now be formed for the above four topics, and while the discussions could be going on simultaneously, there is not much point in wasting much time on the How to tasks until the policy issues have been cut, dried, and hung out for display, or on wasting breath by speculating on the outcomes, or preempting the strategy and tactics of any of the topis. The task forces should preferrably be drawn from volunteer users who really do have some time to dedicate to these issues, and contribute seriously and civilly. (yes, it has to be said). Nothing precludes the possibility of a user working on one or even all of the task forces.--Kudpung (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start?[edit]

Well, I took a little break and I'm still debating whether to rejoin this.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that this is very messy. It would be good to tidy things up, one way or another.

Here are some options:

  1. Keep on keeping on.
  2. Let "uninvolved admin" tidy up by closing.
  3. Move to Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop, which I just drafted.
  4. At least some archiving here.
  5. Kudpung's task force suggestion. (Adding -- this idea is at #Interest and action -- Maurreen (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  6. Other?

What do you think? Maurreen (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number Two should be done as soon as possible. After that, Number Three should begin, with a realization by everyone that the prod process will be moving forward, assuming the closer of this debate agrees. No further stalling. NW (Talk) 11:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-neutral assumptions like statement NW's statement above are exactly why this entire process is assumed to be a railroad. If you are going to throw this to #2, an "uninvolved" administrator, then the entire process of your PROD being accepted, and under what terms, is still open to a decision. The PROD, as defined by every attempt to describe it, is a threat to the very existence of every article it is placed upon. Deletion is the threat it contains. That PROD is exactly where your faction and whatever you would call my side will differ. #5, lets make a task force. I have already volunteered. You and I will be butting heads the same way there. I sincerely suggest you stop trying to force new ways to kill editors hard work down our throats. After we get the death penalty off the table, maybe we can find some method to deal with whatever problem is out there.Trackinfo (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of some sort of project (not wikiproject) whose goal were to propose solutions to existing BLP issues but within existing policies and consensus, their work would be explicitly non-political, i.e. it would not discuss existing or new policies. Proposing policy changes is an important part for dealing with a problem, but it should not the only one, people need also to think together about improving a situation outside of the political game; many users have ideas for improving BLPs and some proposals come from time to time, but we definitely need to coordinate on this issue. Cenarium (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current sourcing drive would be one example of this. Both that drive and Cenarium's wider proposal are excellent ideas - and I encourage all those who think Something must be done immediately to go do it, instead of roiling the waters here. Source a BLP; if it can't be sourced, prod it as a hoax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cenarium's idea could unite a few things, and it could fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which has little activity. Maurreen (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen or someone, could you please link #5 so we can see this option, Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be #Interest and action, three sections up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to give up because there is too much going on to digest. Let me say that anything that Trackinfo accepts will probably be OK with me, so I give him a proxy. -- BRG (talk)
The first action of splitting off the different issues has been created here: WT:BLP PROD TPL. Please don't give up now - more clarity is on the way.--Kudpung (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tools[edit]

All of these are things for the future. Only one thing can be done now (without changing policy), and that is to actually reference some articles. To do this, we need lists of articles to reference that interest us, or are in a field that we know and understand. WP:Australia has brought our list down from over 2000 to under 500 (before some new tagging was done the other day) by creating our own list and sorting them into types (athletes, politicians, actors etc). Seeing a list of 40,000 articles to do is useless. Seeing a list of articles tagged in October 2008 is useless. Seeing a list of Australian sportsmen is useful, as I know where to find refs, which ones are reliable and have a basic idea on what is likely to be verfiable in each article. But it takes me about 20-30mins to do the cat scans and comparisons to sort it all out - time I could be spending referencing. User:WolterBot used to make up these lists, along with all the other categories, but he hasn't since December, and seems to rely on the already-out-of-date-when-published database dumps. If the Wiki Foundation is serious about clearing out the backlog THEY need to make the lists useable and up to date. They need to provide a mechanism better than a single lumped cat that lists these articles for EVERY project that's out there. I've been saying this for almost 2 months now. Why has no-one listened? Why have they had two taskforces (here and here) setup on strategy, but have had no actual outcomes from either (yet)? NW, as a member of these task forces, are you actually progressing, or just having IRC chats amongst friends?The-Pope (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These tools are helpful to me --

Tools
But they are manual. They take time when comparing the 70000 articles in Category:WikiProject Australia articles (and they need to be swapped from talk to mainspace) to the 40000 in Category:All unreferenced BLPs. Or they crash. I use the List Comparer function in WP:Auto Wiki Browser and it works very well - generating this sort of list... but it's slow and takes time. AUTOMATE it, if it so important that we need so much time wasting discussing what to do next.The-Pope (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. CatScan is good, but it is slow.--Work permit (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A warning: BLP deletions to begin anew[edit]

User:Kevin, whose deletions led to the start of this attempt to revamp our approach to BLPs, has given notice that he is going to begin deleting BLPs again, presumably using his list at User:Kevin/Unwatched. – Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've already started tested the waters. I guess it would be against AGF to think that other admins are conspiring offwiki to ramp it up again, it must just be that they are so like-minded that they are randomly deleting unreferenced BLPs in violation of our current CSD standards. See this and thisThe-Pope (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I see he deleted John Murphy (techncial analyst). That's unfortunate. Murphy is a well known figure in the industry. And from google cache, I see that the article actually did have a reference: a bio from the dust jacket of one of his books. Oh well--Work permit (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we are inclusionists or deletionists by nature, whatever is/was/will be decided here, there is still nothing technical nor political that prevents us from using the editing tools that we have, within the guidelines that exist. A danger might arise however, if sysops flagrantly use their tools to radically implement a personal objective. Business as usual... --Kudpung (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My god, a blurb on a dust jacket is not even remotely sufficient to establish notability. This attitude of preserving the weakest articles with the flimsiest of sources, with a "yea I've heard of him therefore he must be important" is the real harm to the Wikipedia. The harm isn't coming from admins taking initiative to clean this crap up. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have been a properly referenced article that was deleted, but the fact is that the admin acted against the conclusions of the RfC. It isn't the actual deletion of the article that is the problem, but the fact that its deletion went entirely against consensus. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. The RfC does not prevent administrators from doing their job and upholding BLP policy, part of which is dealing with unsourced BLP articles. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy doesn't mention deleting unsourced articles; take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources. The policy states that only unsourced contentious material should be removed. Ignoring consensus might be okay if consensus went against policy, but it doesn't. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am outraged by this. What does it take to desysop someone who clearly has no respect whatsoever for consensus? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your outrage is noted. I'm outraged too, actually. What does it take for a community to actually implement an effective process? ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Alzarian16 and others: just a quiet reminder in all these words that the problem with BLPs is that we don't know what is contentious in someone's life. If there isn't a WP:RS for the information, then the default position needs to be that it isn't included in the article. Bielle (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best point I've heard in favour of deletion yet, but still not quite enough to convince me - there are some pieces of information which are unlikely to prove contentious in any way, for example a date of birth or simple information about a person's career or achievements. I have some sympathy with the deleting admin in that unsourced BLPS do damage the encyclopedia, but out-of-process deletion is not a sustainable solution. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you will find that in both the examples given (birth dates and career achievements), there have been huge arguments, both on and off WP; OTRS tickets are full of "wrong information" claims. That's the point: if it is wrong, it is contentious. It may not be the type of information that is the problem, though that is an issue, too, but its accruacy. Thus, unless there is a WP:RS, take out the information. (That doesn't necessarily mean delete the article unless nothing in it is properly sourced.) Bielle (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i took the liberty of resurrecting the article with sources, let's make a list and we will fix the ones worth keeping. i see a lot of talk and not much editing. Pohick2 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were about BLP articles in general, not any specific article. Bielle (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you do make a good point, contentious material: i tend to put any contentious material in a separate section, the vast majority - dob, graduation, awards i put in a life section. i wouldn't let the special case of contention (which we can solve) distract from the larger issue of against policy deletions. Pohick2 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that, as you don't know what is contentious, you cannot, absent WP:RS, categorize any information without such sources, special section or not. This is about deletions of unsourced statements, which may or may not mean a whole article. 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin is making a very public statement at the latest Arbitration over this by saying he has left the project. I personally have my doubts, because:

  1. I have seen way to many public goodbyes used by those who stay as a "you are pushing good editors off wikipedia" argument.
  2. Editors have in-definitely banned themselves and/or publicly left the project to avoid sanction. Okip 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing further summary out-of-process deletions[edit]

I have filed an ArbCom request for clarification, asking at least for the temporary prevention of such deletions here.

I have started a workshop page, in case anyone wants to work together to build that case, here. Maurreen (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest instead that the better way to prevent further deletions that are within policy (but which you may not agree with are in process) is to get moving on implementing an effective process for dealing with unsourced material. Many weeks have went by and there still isn't one. Get it done. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, of the 20 or 30 thousand unsourced BLPs, there are probably at least 10% of them that make no plausible claim for importance or are entirely promotional, and maybe a few dozen which are actually abusive, and these will be enough to start with, without going at random. And there is a very effective process already in place to deal with the unsourced ones otherwise, which is the ongoing effort that has already sourced one-fourth of them. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind the very notable deletions which took place already. Okip 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have an *official* closing ...[edit]

I think we should archive most of this page.

I doubt we have enough energy for User:Kudpung's suggestion above of four task forces, etc.

Somebody (sorry, don't remember who) suggested a project for BLPs more generally. Does anyone want to take that on at this time? Does anyone want to take on anything new at this time? Maurreen (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole problem with this RfC, as I and many others have mentioned several times before, was that its proposal was too general. A general discussion is fine as long as its not trying to conclude a vague proposition. If a specific job of work needs doing to implement a clearly defined objective, then a workshop task force is needed that can get on with it without interference until they come back to the table and present what they have done. I see the present situation, now that the RfC has been closed, as being one of now going ahead and making/implementing without any further ado, the things/policy that has/have been concluded, apparently by a consensus, and wrapped up - wheter we like it or not.
I honestly believe that if we start the whole discussion process over again, then we will be left, as I warned, with only the pugnacious radicals from each faction being uncivil to each other, and the bunch of kids who always hang out in these discussions. I could have spent my editing time more effectively by deleting/rescuing another couple of hundred unsourced/unnotable BLPs.--Kudpung (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tip
Reminder
  • The taskforce workshop for pure technical programmation development of the sticky PROD template is at WT:BLP PROD TPL.--Kudpung (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky prod now utterly pointless[edit]

I take my eyes off this for a few days, because it is being talked to death and I find the whole thing has been hijacked.

The supposed consensus closing states:

A new PROD-like process should be designed to handle new unsourced BLPs (those written after the final approval of the process). Modifying the current PROD for this purpose has been soundly rejected. The BLP PROD should, in general, not be removable without sufficient addition of sources. What "sufficient" constitutes must be determined by the community. In addition, there appears to be a consensus that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. (emphasis added)

That defeats the entire purpose.

Currently, if I find an unsourced article and decide to look for sources and can find none, I can prod or afd the article as being "unverifiable" (not unverified but actually not capable of verification. If no one can verify it in the timeframe of seven days, AfD will then delete it. That's the current system.

The problem with that is that too often no one was prepared to do the source checking, hence the backlog, hence the problem, hence the speedy deletions.

The idea of a stickyprod was that (for new articles) we were going to say (as nicely as we could) "source this, or it dies". If people want a BLP article to stay on wikipedia, they must source it, or someone must, within a seven day period.

The problem with requiring the prodder to look for sources is that it puts us back to square one. That is, if no-one is willing to check for sources, the article ends up staying. We only delete those articles shown to be unverifiable, whilst the unsourced languish until someone sources them, or tries to and fails.

A sticky prod with this caveat is pointless. We've got mechanisms already to remove material that someone believes to be unverifiable. What we were about was shifting the burden for new BLPs onto those wishing to retain.

I'm also left asking. What if someone like me simply prods new unreferenced BLPs and doesn't volunteer to check for sourcing? If someone sources them, certainly they can deprod. But what happens otherwise? Do the articles get kept because the prodder "didn't the work required?"

Sticking prod with an onus on the prodder is a waste of time, and not in line with the consensus that was clear. Seems to me that a we had a consensus, and so some of us moved on, while others, who didn't like that, kept talking till they talked it into something completely different.

The consensus we had would certainly have satisfied me that speedy deletion should not be used. However, this pointless exercise takes us back to square one. Not good at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, although I would like the new sticky prod to include a WP:BEFORE-type provision, I don't see support for that as having established clear consensus. I encourage you to at least keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop, where work is progressing on the sticky prod. Now that we have an official consensus on Balloonman's Part 1 Proposal, I'm hoping productive discussion won't be derailed by outliers. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something seems out of whack. The onus should not be on the person identifing the problem to fix it. Unsourced BLPs need to go. When I read Balloonman's part one statement that seems clear... if it's new and unsourced, it goes, after a chance is given to the writer and others to source it. Is Scott correct in saying the proposed process now puts the onus on the PRODder ??? That's unacceptable, if true.++Lar: t/c 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that whether "the proposed process now puts the onus on the PRODder" has not been established either way, although my preference is opposite yours. The sticky prods are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop. The page even has a section about the question. Maurreen (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The header of that page says "technical discussion only, not policy" in effect. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) The statement bolded by the OP says look for, it doesn't say fix. –Whitehorse1 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a semantic quibble, as looking for sources is required before one can add them. I'll reiterate, the onus is not, and should not, be on the PRODder to determine anything other than "This article, as it stands, lacks sources, and thus is eligible for deletion if not fixed". To take any other stance invites quibbling. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do to clarify the purpose of the page. Maurreen (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with Doc on this. The summary misrepresents consensus, and the thrust of the BLP, on this. It is for the person adding content to demonstrate that it conforms with all Wikipedia polices. There is absolutely no onus on the person proposing the removal, and introducing such an onus would require a very strong Wikipedia consensus. --TS 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? WP:DELPOL is Policy. In specifying reasons for deletion it reads: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." –Whitehorse1 17:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my comment, by no means do I favor newly-created wholly unsourced BLPs by experienced users (or new users for that matter, but would explain things differently to them as they're less likely to be familiar with sourcing requirements). –Whitehorse1 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with Scott here. In addition, I am not sure where The Wordsmith read that there was a consensus for people prodding new biographies to have to follow WP:BEFORE. I certainly didn't see it anywhere, and adding such a clause makes such a prod worse than useless. If you do end up searching, you can handle things with the normal prod process. The Wordsmith, I would appreciate your response here. NW (Talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this too. I'm not sure if I personally would want the nominator to follow WP:BEFORE, but I really don't think there was any consensus for this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Wordsmith's close be undone as unsatisfactory at capturing actual consensus. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing out the entire close would be a little ridiculous. The rest of his close seems totally reasonable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose it with that BSsection removed, then. Then trout the closer. That works for me. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding my agreement with Scott, Lar and NW. There was no consensus for this. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Lar and Scott have attempted to silence me repeatedly, and have gotten sympathetic administrators to put severe restrictions on what I can bring up about their past behavior here (while enjoying unrestricted comments themselves)
I will only say this: "I grow tired of editors who feel that consensus should only be followed if it supports their own position."
There is also the fourth request for arbitration/clarification about these editor's behavior. Okip 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "source this, or it dies".
In the proud tradition of: Wikipedia:Delete the junk and Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over how does the statement "source this, or it dies" build consensus, compromise, accommodation, understanding, retention, and a stronger community?
It is no wonder that journalists have such harsh criticisms about wikipedia editors.[16]
For example, after comparing the collaborative and cooperative nature of Flickr and Digg, the PC Pro magazine journalist wrote:
"For an example of the dark side running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia...It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire"
Okip 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this make the process "utterly pointless" to anyone who intends to use it with good faith?
  • What it requires is that you say "This has no sources; I looked and couldn't find any. Source it or it dies." Why isn't that enough?
  • It may make the usage of mindless bots more difficult; but since the closure already agrees that there is consensus against them, where's the problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closure has now been altered and that should be an end of it here. Further discussion at stickyprod. Rd232 talk 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wrodsmith's right to alter it; I would still like to know the reasoning behind this extravagant response. Who knows? it might persuade me, as this proclamation of DOOM does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The onus should not be on the person identifing the problem to fix it. - This is disingenous. Putting a tag and waiting for deletion or actually sourcing the article are both fixes of the "unsourced BLP" problem. Now, why can you "fix it" by putting a prod-like tag, but you can't fix it by actually looking for sources before putting the tag? Maybe because putting the tag is easy and making a bit of googling is (marginally) less easy? The "source it or die" principle doesn't seem challenged by this requirement: but if you want to actually improve articles and reduce false positives, making a look for sources before seems only fair. If they don't come up, you can say "Well, I tried, and I didn't find anything -so here's the tag". --Cyclopiatalk 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is poor quality writing to source existing content by doing an internet search. It promotes mis-attribution (plagiarism), violation of the neutrality policy (especially undue weight), and generally poor writing when people unfamiliar with a topic do quick fixes to save an article. If an editor is required to look for sources instead of adding a prod tag, then that editor in some instances must choose between doing nothing at all when they see a problem or engage in poor quality writing. Neither of these options are appropriate if the goal having a high quality encyclopedia. We must include a way to trigger the deletion process for all unsourced drticles, especially the ones that no one wants to edit to improve. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're dealing here with BLPs. They are not rocket science that requires a professional insight into the subject matter, by all accounts, and in my experience, most of the unsourced ones are about football players, schol team players, non-print published authors, and vitually unknown actors and media people. Great offenders a re programme presenters oin very local, local radio stations. Therefore, IMHO, a prodder should naturally do a WP:BEFORE, whatsmore, it's basic common sense. However, the problem is that it is difficult to enforce because an overwhelming number of trigger-happy taggers of all kinds are the drive-past taggers who are:
  • children or adolescents who are running contests on the block for high edit scores and treating the Wiipeda as a game (proven).,
  • slightly more mature editors (among them some young PhDs) who firmly believe that arrogance, and a high edit count are the paths to adminship. (proven).

--Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith's closure does reflect the consensus, I was dubious, but it does seem a quite reasonable summary. While Scott Mac may think it is useless, it was the compromise that was acceptable. Drive by tagging without any checking was not counted as acceptable in the consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight's skillful change of topic deserves admiration, in the original sense: we are not discussing deletion of poorly sourced BLPs; that might actually have some evidence that well-sourced BLPs are more accurate, but has never been proposed here (it would rely very much on one admin's judgment of what is a poor source.

The version without BEFORE would require that a newbie be challenged to find a source in a few days. Why does anybody suppose that he is likely to do more than google, if google finds him something.

But this is the fundamental paradox of the anti-BEFORE argument; they must argue simultaneously that finding a source

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

These are inconsistent, no matter what level of sourcing one is discussing, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modification to the close[edit]

Upon further review, I have determined that the contentious section of my close may have misjudged how much support there was for the BEFORE option. I have reworded that statement as follows:

In addition, there appears to be a consensus significant minority who feel that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. The community will have to determine whether or not this is a valid part of the new process.

Hopefully, this is satisfactory. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He caved, based on the history of this entire process, that is no big surprise. Okip 18:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment." –Whitehorse1 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it works just to ask. Thanks, Wordsmith. Maurreen (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, i'm always willing to review my actions and change things if it turns out I was wrong. BEFORE discussing overturning the close, the best thing to do would have been to comment on my talk page and ask me to take a second look at the consensus (or lack thereof) surrounding that statement. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that halfturn, but we still need closure on that point. Are you suggesting that we need a further poll or are you asking for another uninvolved admin to close that part? Since this was part of the RFC for several weeks and has 119 supports and 35 opposers I think further debate would be unhelpful, but making this a trial period with review after 6 months would IMHO be a reasonable concession. ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that no further closure is needed. The discussion here has been largely debate over whether BLP PROD is needed or not, and very little discussion of duration or what needs to be done to successfully remove it, or whether bad taggings can be removed as normal, or any of a number of other details. I have concluded that the special PROD-like process is necessary and supported by the community, but the exact details have not been determined. They will have to be discussed by a separate proposal or task force, since I can't pull a consensus out of thin air. I also outlined what should happen now in my "next steps" section of the close. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of contention and the issue that determines whether or not this is workable is whether the sticky prod can be applied without a good faith attempt to source the article. That was clearly what 119 have just supported and what most of the 35 opposers were opposed to. The other things you mention are important details, but this was the core of the RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal that had 119 supports mentioned nothing about attempting to look for sources. The proposals and discussions that did resulted in no consensus, largely because there were several other issues mixed in there and discussion got very muddled and confusing. As a result, the issue of BEFORE is something that will have to be refined in the BLP PROD proposal, along with other technical details. Consensus was probably leaning towards not including that part, but not enough for me to call it a consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that modification. It moves the statement closer to the actual consensus reached. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contrariwise - I would suggest that a majority feel that the PRODder has some onus to see if the BLP is readily sourceable (for example, where the old-style articles use "see also" and not inline cites). This is quite different from "significant minority" to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal didn't specify that articles had to have inline citation. An article is sourced if it has a reference - even if the reference is poorly formatted or called a source, poorly sourced articles are a problem, but were outside the scope of the sticky prod discussion. I've reread the 119 supports and I notice that number 13 had redacted their support but not indented their !vote. Several said they didn't agree 100% with the solution, but that includes some who had wanted a rather more deletionist approach. I didn't see more than a couple who specifically had concerns about articles being prodded without an attempt to source them, and whilst I did see a concern about removing incorrect sticky tags I doubt that anyone one would have a problem with a "sticky prod" being unstuck from a river, fictional character, or murder victim. ϢereSpielChequers 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about a sticky prod is that it sticks. It is applied to an unsourced article and must not be removed unless a source is added. If it is thought to be a "bad prod", there's no problem, you just add a source and deprod, hey presto, sorted. We don't inquire into the subjective disposition of the prodder, we don't need him to make a statement about whether he did or didn't check google. The prod is a comment only on the article and it says "this is a new BLP and is unsourced." The prodder is irrelevant. Sticky prods stick, unless there is actually a source on, or later put on, the article - anything else isn't a sticky prod.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, but what needs to be done for it to be removed? Is it just one source? enough to convert blpunreferenced to blprefimproved? a fully sourced article? what about reliability of the sources? What sort of actions can be taken against those who try to remove them without providing sources? In general, a BLP PROD is supported (god, I hate that work "sticky." Sounds awful), but there are fine details that need to be hashed out. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least as I supported it, a sticky prod means a prod where there is some way of following up if it does not get improved that is more reliable in catching them all than the present haphazard method. I don;t think there is really any consensus for anything more than that. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DGG. That's roughly how I supported it as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The close is good enough[edit]

If I were in a quibbling mood, I might quibble with some points of the close. But that would be unproductive.

Balloonman's proposal, and the resulting !vote, showed where there is general consensus. The details are for the future, such as on the workshop page.

The main points are:

  1. The community supports sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs.
  2. In general, the deletion side is willing to wait a few months to see if they believe further action is necessary.

That should be enough for both sides here.

If you want to discuss details, it would be best to do that on the workshop page. Maurreen (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Quote: only one position is advocated - Yes, because simply starting all the discussions over again would have been so productive.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Archive_1&oldid=1136056598"