Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive 2

There are 688 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)

Note: the talk page for the first phase of the RfC has been moved, together with the actual Phase I page, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase I.

Unclosed the RFC

Sorry, I know I'll get a backwash from this, but per this The Wordsmith was not uninvolved. I unclosed it procedurally, not per my views on the situation. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help find an appropriate person to do this? The listing was removed from WP:AN. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that editors on both "sides" were dissatisfied with the outcome... are we going to get a better close? Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If we do get a new close, I suggest that the talk page also be considered for closing. To keep relevant discussion together, most should move to the workshop page. Maurreen (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee, whether I am on the same side as you or not, I suggest that you are you are recused. There has not been, and should not be, a poll as to the number of editors who agree/disagree with Wordsmith's closure - that would be a mockery of the whole system of discussion and/or debate. The closure should only be reopened after an investigation by arbcom, otherwise you will be inviting a new bunch of discussions:

• Whether the closure was correctly/procedurally made.
• Whether the closer correctly identified the consensus.
• Whether the consensus was about: Old BLPs, new BLPs, Speedy, AfDs, PRODs, WP:BEFORE, template design, software solutions, or whatever.

all of which would of course now be probably very counterproductive, and I think the immediate solution would be to look at the actual editing and/or tagging tasks that we have before us to eliminate the backlog in the fairest possible way, and to prevent new BLPs getting added to it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, there's no question that The Wordsmith had a COI while closing this RFC. It would and should be treated the exact same way as if I, a participant in the RFC, had closed this RFC; that is to say that only a truly uninvolved admin should ever close these discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Has this been re-advertised on ANI/AN? I posted a note a while ago asking for an uninvolved closer (before The Wordsmith closed it), but it's since been archived. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you will find an admin who is truly uninvolved in the BLP matter, at least not one with the balls to close an RFC of this magnitude. Truth be told, I had actually forgotten about that comment. I think my closure was an accurate summary of the consensus (and even somewhat goes against my personal views on the matter), but if editors feel that I am too involved I have no problems with somebody else closing it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, and I don't really have a problem with your closing it. (Since I'm pretty sure most admins have voiced an opinion on this topic at least once). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that our chances of finding a completely uninvolved admin willing to do close this are not good. Here are a couple of ideas:

1. Leave as is, protected with no closing comments.
2. Accept the Wordsmith's closing -- I don't remember his(?) position on the overall issue. But maybe Risker, who closed Phase 1, was also not uninvolved, because Risker had participated as an arbitrator in a very related case.
3. Agree on a very short closing statement along this line - 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. Maurreen (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee, I think you missed the point. I am totally in agreement with the procedural form of Wordsmith's closure. Even if I may not agree with the entire result (I do actually), I never once suggested that he had a COI, and I will certainly accept his verdict. Furthermore I strongly feel that reopeing the discussion, by anybody, would be totally counter productive.--Kudpung (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think both Wordsmith and Coffee acted here with good faith and sound reasoning. I also think that many of us want to wrap up this stage, put a bow on it. If the close is reasonable, the close is reasonable. So, I'll try to take my own advice. See ya. Maurreen (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be very helpful if there was some sort of comment on the main page to explain what happened. Just dropped by after a couple of days away, and had to trawl through the edit history to reconstruct events. - Snarkibartfast (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There will be after an uninvolved admin closes the discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee, I think the bottom line is, that you disagree with the closing rational, and are using procedural reasons to revert a conclusion you don't personally like. So lets skip past the procedural reason and get to the bottom of this: in what points do you personally disagree? Okip 11:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice way to assume bad faith Okip... I'll just pretend I didn't see this. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

←Back in February, I brought up a question for Risker about her close of what's come to be known as phase one, as she'd participated as an arbitrator in closely related matters along with apparently helping User:Lar set up an earlier (and focused on the same category of articles) contentious venture multiple people characterized as a point violation or contradiction of our principles. Shortly afterwards I withdrew it because, like I said in the edit summary life's too short & I wasn't happy with the tone of how it came out.

However, as the topic of closer uninvolved status has now been expressly raised in this new thread, and the latest close mentions that same issue, it seems that topic's an ongoing concern. Getting Risker's perspective seems to be a first step to help us address it. –Whitehorse1 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 A courtesy note pointing here has been posted to Risker's talkpage. –Whitehorse1 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that phase I has come and gone, I recommend we avoid drama and not pursue this. Hundreds of KB were written after the phase I closure, and consensus has now been established. I personally believe the phase I close misrepresented consensus, but it's too late to fret about it. Let's get this show on the road. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, I've no wish to encourage drama either. However, the 5th sentence of the most recent close statement directly covers the phase I closure uninvolved aspect. It's not something that's going to go away. If an RfC has been shaped right from the word go—by accident or design due to involvement, surely that's important? The 1st phase closure shaped the focuses of the 2nd. –Whitehorse1 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your desired outcome here? to redo phase 2? At this point, that is simply impossible. I don't see anything positive coming out of this - What is the possible positive outcome you see? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

C, I don't have all the answers. I do know if problems exist, ostrich syndrome can't help. If something can be cleared up that's a positive. –Whitehorse1 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's ostrich syndrome. If you can't even imagine any positive outcome, I think the mess we have is the best we can do. Just my two cents - you can do as you like, obviously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Things to do

Since Coffee's objection was procedural, and the closure's been endorsed by another admin, I'd suggest that it might be constructive to move on (unless someone feels strongly enough that the closure really needs to be reverted). But barring that, that leaves us with:

1. Turning BLP-PROD into a proposal that can put forward for approval in two weeks. Should this be over at Wikipedia:Sticky_Prod_workshop?.
2. Dropping notes on the pump to see what sort of policy page changes should be made
3. Some sort of note for the Signpost / WikiProjects

Thoughts? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The replacement of consensus by majority rule in Wordsmith's original closure is a far-reaching and irresponsible change of policy by one admin. There is no consensus for a new bureaucracy; there might be if the torrent of "let's move on" were to stop, and there were (mirabile dictu) some actual evidence that this proposal would be likely to help Wikipedia in any way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

God, let this go. Voting has long been the best approximation of "consensus" on contentious issues here. Wikipedia can't wait until every person agrees on a proposed outcome to proceed, and 78% or whatever it was here is clearly sufficient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Never. Those who wish to change core policy (like WP:CONSENSUS should have the courage to do so, not amend by implication. Someone who is resolutely opposed to our long-established polioies should not be an admin. Are you open to recall, or must I take stronger measures? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

While yes, !voting is evil, I'm not sure there is any way to apply the typical discussion-based model to a topic this complex and with this many participants. (At least, I'm not aware of any examples of where that's been done onwiki). Especially since what you'd like to see (evidence proving that references will reduce errors) seems to be taken as a self-evident fact by many of the supporters of the proposal. (Personally, I think it's much easier to verify something if there's already a source present that can confirm/deny a fact, but I agree that it won't solve the problem in any sense; it simply is a small step towards making things easier to verify). There's no way we can prevent any errors on BLP pages (at least not without flagging and sighting all of them), but I don't think we should let perfect be the enemy of good enough. (And before I let the numbers thing drop, I'd also add that Jehochman's proposal, which was much stronger than the current one had a support of 84%, and the most overall support in the whole Phase I thing). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It would only be taken as self-evident by someone who, like all too many admins, has given up editing articles to do something more central to Wikipedia; or who knows no subject independently of WP. The extent to which footnotes can be attached to utterly wrong text is breathtaking; most often because the text has been "fixed" by some doctrinaire ignoramus without altering the footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

With reference to Bfigura's opening message in this section, I suggest that the topic is now moot, and most of us with something to do (rather than say) have moved on - making this twice closed RfC moot. I--Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RANDUREF

I've created a page at WP:RANDUNREF which provides a random Unreferenced BLP every day. It's transcluded below.

Seymour Mayne (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 23 Sep 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

This approach could possibly be worked into something more elaborate, since the bot can filter by other categories too (eg five unreferenced BLPs of the day, from different topic areas). Note though that the bot can only do one entry per page, so it would involve making various subpages and transcluding them. See the use at WP:VRNB.

On a related note, I see there is a Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP - but no others of this type. A helpful thing would be to create lists or categories for different topics of unrefd BLPs (a bot could do a lot) and point the relevant wikiprojects at them. Rd232 ^talk 11:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: there is now User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A Bot for Lists

Hey there. Okip asked me to code a bot to generate lists of unreferenced BLPs for Wikiprojects. The bot has been approved, and is now live. If you want, add your wikiproject to the bot's list by adding it to the list here. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Following the consensus, participation on this project has now been moved to the workshop page at WT:STICKY where the physical aspects of all the bots, lists, and templates are being discussed and developed. Perhaps yopu would like to repost the details of your bot there as it may well save some duplication of effort. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is anyone able to give a very brief summary of what was decided during the RfC? I see talk of phase 1 and phase 2, and sticky prod workshops, but it's not easy to track down what was agreed, even in broad terms. The reason I'm asking is to know what direction the BLP policy needs to be steered in, and whether it needs updating in any way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was concluded and closed here: WP:BLPRFC2. And with it, IMO, there should be no real reason to continue it, or steer it in any particular direction. Admittedly it was indeed an exceptionally confusing RfC. However, based on the consensus, the issue has now moved to the practicla aspect of creating the templates and bots to implement the policy. This is being done here: WT:STICKY, and there is also a page for discussing the policy only of the timings of various actions of the PROD. Hope this helps.--Kudpung (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. So the outcome of the RfC was to create a new BLP PROD process. I see there's a workshop page but no actual process or template actually proposed, is that right? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to WT:STICKY. The template design concept is well under way and will shortly be concluded. Others are working building the bots, and policy regarding timelines are being deiscussed at WT:STICKY POLICY.--Kudpung (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the page but can't figure out what's going on. A template only takes minutes to create, and what are the policies regarding timelines? Sorry for all the questions, but there's so much talk it's hard to see what's what. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Little has been decided yet. Policies regarding timelines are still under discussion. To the extent that there is a plan, that plan includes discussing wording changes needed for any Wikipedia namespace pages and making those changes.

Regardless of how long it takes to create a template, forging consensus does take more than minutes. Maurreen (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The positive point is that we managed to get over the WP:BEFORE hurdle in a reasonable manner. see here. --KrebMarkt 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That was likely the most contentious issue. Hopefully, it will all get easier. Maurreen (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with taking so long to reach consensus and making the issues so complex is that you lose your audience. Maurreen, can you say what "policies regarding timelines," and "discussing wording changes needed for any Wikipedia namesspace pages ..." means?

The thing I can't understand is this: if a PROD tag is added to an unsourced BLP, and the point is to get someone to add a source before they remove the tag, are they simply meant to stick in one source for any of the points; source everything; or source anything that someone might regard as contentious? I can't find a discussion about that, though it's clearly the key issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1. About "The problem with taking so long to reach consensus and making the issues so complex is that you lose your audience" -- Are you faulting someone?
2. Basically, as of yesterday, the only policy-related decision is that WP will have a WP:PROD-like system to delete new unsourced BLPs. I set up the workshop to set up all that needs to be set up regarding that new system. There is not yet anything to change. When the workshop works out the details, I expect that the participants will widely publicize the details and implement the needed changes to the relevant pages.
3. The RFC resulted in a !vote strongly supporting sticky prods for new unsourced BLPs. Thus, the sticky prods should be used to tag and delete only new unsourced BLPs. But other interpretations have been brought up. Maurreen (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe you can't find a discussion about it because most people think "unsourced" means "unsourced." Maurreen (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
4. By "workshop," I mean WT:STICKY. Maurreen (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
5. In other words, going back to your original questions -- "direction the BLP policy needs to be steered in, and whether it needs updating in any way" -- the BLP policy does not need to be steered; the general thrust was decided in the RFC, the workshop will figure out new wording that should need only one sentence. Maurreen (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
6. The thrust of the change is that after a date to be decided, WP will no longer allow new unsurced BLPs. Maurreen (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first point I don't know whose fault this is, because it's so hard to follow the discussion, but there seems to be an elevation of discussion about process over moving forward. When that happens, people lose the will to live and drop out, which means you never really end up with consensus, and a proposal that might have succeeded fails for lack of interest.

Can you address the last point I raised above, namely if a PROD tag is added to an unsourced BLP, and the point is to get someone to add a source before they remove the tag, are they simply meant to stick in one source for any of the points; source everything; or source anything that someone might regard as contentious? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

About your criticism -- If you think you can do better, I encourage you to participate.

About your question -- Please see #3 above. Maurreen (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Would you mind showing me where the discussion is about what will justify the removal of a prod tag in terms of sourcing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I can easily understand that joining jn to such a complex topic can be a bit daunting for a late comer. However, it would appear that the answers to general line of your questions here can be found in the RfC Phases 1 & 2 in which over 400 individuals had their say, and Maurreen had adequately summed things up for you in her 6 points above. If you are worried about people dropping out, well that has happened already, with a small but dynamic team left holding the wrenches, screwdrivers, and grease guns. We encourage you most heartily to join the workshop page, not merely as a bystander asking for clarification on issues that have already been concluded, but with suggestions for the wording of the template, the notifications, and warnings, and the proposed functions of the bots. If you wish to contribute your thoughts to various timelines that are under discussion, you are also welcome to do that at WT:STICKY POLICY. However, to continue any discussion here on this RfC would probably be flogging a dead horse.--Kudpung (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maureen's summary is very helpful. Thank you. I know that SlimVirgin's specific question is still being answered elsewhere: Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#WP:BEFORE. However, that discussion is huge! I wasn't sure where to put my comments so I tagged them onto my comments at Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#Length of time before deletion. Essentially, I feel that we are all responsible for sourcing on all articles (brand new for 2010 or classic jobs from 2003), whether we be creators, taggers, general editors, drive-by fixer uppers, whatever. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing issues and proposing solutions

I mentioned earlier that one may need a permanent place where we can discuss general issues wrt BLPs and work out ideas or proposals for improvement within existing policies. I think that place shouldn't be concerned with policy changes/proposals mostly because it would become controversial and reduce efficiency in developing ideas. Examples: issue of identifying problematic content in blps -> responses: create or modify filters or other tools to detect them, develop pages/templates for coordination, raise awareness of them, keep track of enhancement requests at bugzilla (we could do this in general) another issue: unsourced blps and insufficient sourcing -> responses: coordinate the effort in sourcing unsourced blps, create or improve help pages so that new users know how to source, finding ways to make sourcing work more attractive (e.g. by listing unsourced & insufficiently sourced blps by topic). Of course, any action that requires substantial consensus should be advertized at the relevant places (ex. for running a watchlist notice). I'm not sure which title should be given though, maybe Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/General issues ? Cenarium (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I think the sticky prods need to be set up first, though. Maurreen (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Motion

FYI, there have been more out-of-process deletions since the mass deletions that started this kertuffle.

I've proposed a motion to ArbCom.

It is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people.

ArbCom member Carcharoth has asked me to "ask those involved in these discussions to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed, especially those you have mentioned in it." Maurreen (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"There have been more out-of-process deletions" -- made by whom, and when? Links to a user log or the equivalent, please.--Father Goose (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See here for some detail. Maurreen (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I only see one link there of an admin making recent out-of-process deletions ([1]), and he appears to have stopped, though with no apparent explanations as to why he did it or why he stopped. User:Kevin threatened to resume, then pledged not to in his statement in the arbcom thread. To be honest, I think that there is no need to pursue this unless you can present more evidence that this is an active and ongoing problem. Then we (and hopefully arbcom) will have to intercede.--Father Goose (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree.

There has been more than one person doing this (more info at ArbCom), but that's not my point. It appears that some people think these are justified.

My purpose was to prevent an ongoing problem, to stop it while it is or was small instead of it becoming another kertuffle. The purpose of the proposed motion is not to punish anyone, but to get a clear declaration against the deletions.

But no biggie if we disagree. Maurreen (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The side effect of this motion would a de-facto AbrCom endorsement of BLP RFC phase I & II results preventing further backtracking even if it's very unlikely at this point of the discussion/negotiation. --KrebMarkt 08:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

KrebMarkt - It is pretty clear to me that ArbCom already fully endorse the results of the RfC. Indeed, they have little option given that it was attended by over 400 editors and the conlusions were exacting and fair to all major viewpoints! Not sure what you are trying to say here? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen - I haven't a clue how to comment on your Proposal: that ArbCom page doesn't allow threaded discussion and simply creating my own section would lead to even more confusion, I suspect. Scott MacDonald explained it better in his Point of Order section and I concur with him --Jubilee♫clipman 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems we haven't the same reading how badly the discussion enfolded during Phase II with backtracking, delaying actions, some "let start all over again" suggestions and others "i don't care of Phase I results" opinions. In term of negotiation and consensus building process Phase II was a full fledged disaster regardless its constructive results. So ArbCom explicits endorsement may have limited those actions. --KrebMarkt 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom seems to have endorsed all sets of closing comments (those in Phase I and both of those in the double closure of Phase II), however, which is what I meant --Jubilee♫clipman 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as not commenting -- OK, thanks anyway. Maurreen (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that I want to comment but I don't know where to put my comment. (I concur with Scott Mac's statement that the ArbCom page is confusing but not with much else he says! ) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jubilee, sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by concurring with Scott.

You can add any comments directly under Septentrionalis/PManderson's (or whatever statement immediately precedes "Clerk Notes" when you get there).

You can ignore all the back-and-forth if you wish, and just comment on the proposed motion.

The motion is not perfect, but it is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people, while still addressing my main concern -- summary deletions.

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Maureen. I'll have a think what to say and get back over there. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The motion is extremely unhelpful, and utterly misses the point. We have a way forward - stickyprod, backlog work - review in 3 months, to see if we are on target for eliminating the backlog in 12 (now 11) months. If that consensus is respected, then summary deletions (which have stopped to allow consensus to gather) will be unjustifiable. You don't need an arbcom motion to say that, it is agreed. The problem is WHERE IS THE STICKY PROD???? Not here. It is the lack of that action that threatens the whole thing. But instead of sorting that, we go to arbcom to get an injunction against a hypothetical threat that can't actually happen if the consensus (in its entirety) is implemented. The effect of the motion would be to allow those opposing/delaying stickprod to block it - and cause a level of frustration that can only make matters worse. Do the stickyprod thing NOW, and there's no reason to go to arbcom. I am beginning to find it difficult to assume good faith here. --Scott Mac (Doc) 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make my own mind up on all that, thanks, which seems more useful than you telling us "We're all doomed!!!!" The BLP-PROD is still under construction. I think the timescale set by ArbCom was a little over-optimistic, IMO, as there are Policy implications, procedural issues, technical issues etc etc to sort out, yet. Patience is a virtue and there is no deadline... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not. Sticky prod was simple "don't remove prods from new unsourced BLPs without sourcing them". It was obviously the agreement in January. Most people moved on, thinking that was that. Now a very small group are devising "Policy implications, procedural issues, technical issues etc etc" and insisting on delay. A deadline? This whole issue arose because that "no deadline" evantualist mantra had been shown to be thoroughly inappropriate for BLPs. It is long, long, past time this show hit the road.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this proposed motion is going to go nowhere given how few actual out-of-process deletions are taking place. However, the manner of your comments here is itself unhelpful.--Father Goose (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any examples at all on the WT:STICKY or the WT:STICKY POLICY where people are deliberately holding things up, or even doing so unintentionally. Two people seem to have agreed to programme the PROD template. A few couple have discussed its wording and design and provided several examples, and if there are no more significations suggestions soon, I - or I hope someone else - will draw up something for approval based on a synthesis of those suggestions. On the policy page, as far as I can see, all that needs to be decided is the length of time the PROD will stick, before the article can be deleted without discussion or sent to AfD. There seems to be a slow but regular influx of suggestions and in a day or two, if nobody else does, I - or I hope someone else - will declare a consensus and consider it wrapped up. Arbcom has suggested setting a deadline, but I personally don't think we need one - if the whole thing is up and running by the end of march that would be fine. Some articles have been waiting for over three years to have something done abourt them and I've tagged a few more active unref'd or insufficiently ref'd BLPs this morning. I want that PPROD as much as anyone.

When we have it up and running, we can reopen discussion about what to do with the backlog and the even older unsourced BLPs. TYhe main reason why the RfC came to a sticky end was because, as I mentioned on it and its talk page a dozen times, was that it was trying to discuss both issues simultaneously, as well as the policy/policies regarding all the different criteria for deleting or conserving articles in general. A lot of people don't seem to grasp that this sticky prod is not going to be a licence to kill. What it will do is encourage creators, patrollers, and coincidental visitors (like me) to either PROD, CSD, or AfD unsourced article, and discourage the overzealous deletionists from their drive-past tagging habits. Either way, it should drastically cut down the number of new unsourced BLPs, so it's something for everybody. As far as the arbcom is concerned, I never really understood head or tail of it apart from some arb wanting a natural leader to crystallise out of the four people left on workshop!

So if you guys haven(t yet put your 2 cents on the minor issues remaining on the WT:STICKY and the WT:STICKY POLICY, now is the time to do so and the sooner we can get it wrapped up and the show on the road.--Kudpung (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that ArbCom should get involved, they want to see the community consensus. It is not their role to force consensus one way or to hurry it up. If there is an undercurrent of out of process deletions, please use the appropriate processes to get them restored. I am willing to speedy restore improperly speedily deleted articles. And even help to fix the problem. And there are other ways to draw attention to inappropriate administrator activities WP:AN/I. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding sources

We already know the next excuse to try to forcibly implement mass deletions will be the fact that progress against "that number" of unreferenced BLPs has "stalled." We passed a milestone this weekend finally passing under the 40K number. Doesn't sound like much considering it was around 42K a few weeks ago. That number is artificial. Even though I took that number personally below 40K once, a few hours later the number was back over 40K again with several hundred NEWLY ADDED unreferenced BLPs. This has been happening constantly for weeks--the milestone just makes it more apparent. I've cleaned out several categories, only to find them full again the next day. As fast as some of us are trying to add sources, others are actively searching for and successfully tagging (not bothering to look for sources, just taking the lazy way out, then moving on) additional unreferenced BLPs. Admittedly, there are probably thousands more to be found. Does that really mean that progress has stalled? NO. It means that the same individuals who want to start deleting articles are trying to make it LOOK LIKE progress has stalled. They are throwing all the obstacles they can into our path. Real progress is occurring. I'm saying this publicly. DON'T YOU DARE come back in a few months reporting that there is no progress and then using that as an excuse to launch an assault.Trackinfo (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the clear consensus was that the backlog of unreferenced BLPs tagged as of 2/28/2010 had to be reduced significantly. It has so far, and although I've referenced plenty of articles that were tagged in March 2010, I ignore them when looking at the progress on the backlog. We continue to make very significant progress, but I'm hopeful that DASHBot's new Wikiproject-specific lists of the backlog will make it even easier to clear the backlog quickly. Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Please change {{NUMBERINGROUP:oversight}} to {{NUMBERINGROUP:suppress}}. (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive 2#Debate 3: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits, first comment), following the recent internal rename. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#oversight group renamed (breaking change) for more info. While I realise this is a long closed RFC I still feel its proper to update, given that the it essentially changes it to what the commenter intended. Thanks in advance, -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this old talk archive doesn't need to be fixed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)