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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A large portion of this original RFC, which editors are now discussing, was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive.

Phase I of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is now closed. This is Phase II of the WP:RFC on dealing with unsourced WP:BLPs.

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

For more information, please see the Q&A on the talk page.

For related material, please see the /Archive, the #Table summary below or the talk page.

Table summary

submission	submission time	subject	Support (S)	Oppose (O)	Neutral (N)	%Support (%S)	Stance
MZMcBride	15:58, 21/01/2010	"Any biography that is poorly referenced or completely unreferenced should be deleted on-sight. If a user wishes to re-create the biography, they may request undeletion (or simply re-create the page) as long as they provide adequate sourcing."	55	157	1	25.94%	Stricter 0 days Delete immediately
Jehochman	16:14, 21/01/2010	Any article that satisfies the attack page criteria should be deleted on sight. Biographies of living persons (BLP) articles that are unreferenced should be proposed for deletion (prod). Prodding should proceed at a reasonable rate to allow interested editors the chance to add sources. The volume of proposed deletions should not be unreasonably large. Discussion can establish what is a reasonable pace. After five seven days, any article so tagged may be deleted, or moved to the Wikipedia:Article incubator if it shows promise. Prod notices should not be removed, nor should articles be undeleted, unless proper references are added. Anybody who engages in mass de-prodding or undeletion without adding references risks a block for disruption. All editors are invited to participate in this BLP cleanup campaign.	163	35	8	82.32%	Stricter 7 days
Jclemens	16:22, 21/01/2010	"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."	83	14	1	85.57%	No change
Collect	16:16, 21/01/2010	"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."	83	20	4	80.58%	Make orderly changes in processes as needed only, recognizing that non-contentious material should not be an issue
David Gerard	16:17, 21/01/2010	"I suggest a PROD-like template - call it BLP-PROD - which says "Find references for this article or it DIES." Five days seems too long, make it two days."	64	48	1	57.14%	Stricter 2 days
DGG	17:10, 21/01/2010	"For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless."	66	6	5	91.67%	No change
Power.corrupts	18:12, 21/01/2010	"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."	48	15	0	76.19%	No change
Sandstein	19:25, 21/01/2010	"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."	75	6	3	92.59%	N/A
Jimbo Wales	15:14, 25/01/2010	"Starting with everything which has been unreferenced for more than 3 years, a three-month notice time starting February 1st, before they are deleted on May 1st. 2. Starting with everything which has been unreferenced for more than 2 years, a three-month notice time starting May 1st, before they are deleted on August 1st. 3. Starting with everything which has been unferenced for more than 1 year, a three-month notice time starting August first, before they are deleted on November 1st. In all cases, biographies deleted for being old and unreferenced should be put onto a list for those who wish to come behind and work on them further. After that, we can consider how long is a reasonable life span (I would say one week, but one month could be fine as well) for new biographies to exist in a sad state before they are deleted.	36	25	5	59.02%	Stricter 7 days to 30 days
Aymatth2	13:39, 24 January 2010	This proposal is to create a mechanically ranked list of all unsourced BLPs, so editors who want to remove inappropriate articles can work up from the bottom of the list, and editors who want to retain valuable content can work down from the top. Obvious ranking criteria would be: Positive: Number of inbound links, number of unique editors, size Negative: Number of days since creation, number of days since last edit The values would be given weightings in a ranking formula such as: (inboundlinks x 100) + (uniqueeditors x 150) + (sizekb x 50) - (agedays x 1) - (lasteditdays x 0.5)					Technical
Henrik	16:24, 21 January 2010	"A significant minority of editors are unwilling to let unsourced, but likely uncontentious biographies remain in the encyclopedia. Deleting content makes the text available to only a select few, and makes fixing the articles a significantly harder process. I suggest an alternative to tackle the backlog of the roughly 50k articles in question: We institute a process to hide the contents of unsourced biographies, using a template developed for the purpose. We provide clear instruction that sourcing must be instituted before the template is removed (easily checkable by automated means) Those articles which have remained in this hidden state for a reasonable, but fairly long, amount of time, but which have not been fixed are deleted. This allows us to work towards preserving the content of these articles, while maintaining respect for the potential harm unsourced biographies may cause."					Technical
WereSpielChequers	16:57, 21 January 2010	Earlier this month User:DASHBot started gently chiding the authors of unsourced BLPs. I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see what effect that has on Category:All unreferenced BLPs, or if people want to give DASHBot a hand, look for retired/inactive/blocked users who DASHBot has spoken to and help them fix or delete their unsourced contributions. ...can someone write a Bot to inform wikiprojects of unsourced BLPs in their remit in the same way that DASHBot has been informing authors?" ...introduce "delete new unsourced BLP" as a speedy criteria; provided that we very clearly inform article creators that from a particular date this is the new rule, and that articles created after that date with information about living people must be reliably sourced. ...proding the unreferenced residue in batches over a couple of months ...I agree with delete unsourced BLPs on sight as the policy we should be able to enact in say 6 months. But with the following provisos: An unsourced biography should at the very least have its history checked to see if reverting a bit of vandalism won't restore it to a referenced article. Good faith contributions should never be deleted without the author being informed and given an easy route to getting their article restored for their next editing session. We also need an exception for articles being restored and referenced - some sort of template such as prod that can be added to a restored article so that the person requesting its restoration has at least a few hours to do so. Any user should be able to request, and any admin permitted to restore an existing article deleted under this process, provided the requester is promising to reference the article ASAP.	31	9		77.50%	Stricter Technical
NJA	16:53, 21 January 2010	reduce the time from five days devise a special PROD template specific to BLP's so that it can have a specialized category for monitoring and tracking (using NOINDEX) set out to add an edit filter to track BLP PROD template removals, as is currently done for CSD template removals for easier admin tracking	10	19		34.48%	Stricter 5 days
The Anome	17:11, 21 January 2010	Any bot activity...will need to be intensively supervised by humans for some time to avoid serious loss of useful articles...numerous articles are currently tagged as unsourced BLPs when they have references	10	2		83.33%	Technical
Resolute	17:59, 21 January 2010	...Wikiprojects can help. User:WolterBot has a function that generates a cleanup listing by project. Using tools such as this allows the community to break the overwhelming scope of this issue down into manageable sizes. If we repurpose this function as a mandatory listing for all projects - either as a one time run or a quarterly listing - we can at least begin to tackle this problem.	35	7		83.33%	Technical
Themfromspace	19:03, 21 January 2010	"holding tank" for all uncited BLP articles. This could be a separate project space altogether, or the subpages of a WikiProject. Each uncited BLP would then be automatically moved out of the mainspace to this holding space where it would not be indexed by Google. Each of these articles would then be considered a work in progress (and could be tagged as such) until they were moved back into the mainspace.	6	10		37.50%	Technical
Arthur Rubin	19:16, 21 January 2010	Any deletion by an accelerated process...should, after deletion, restore a (locked, if needed) stub...The stub should not be deleted for 6 months, unless a non-accelerated deletion procedure is followed.	22	7		75.86%	technical
NuclearWarfare	19:53, 21 January 2010	I would submit that the community cannot fully trust administrators who violate the BLP policy.	18	27	1	40.00%	N/A
OrangeDog	20:00, 21 January 201	Unreferenced articles on notable living people that contain no contentious material (including, but not limited to a large number of stubs) should be treated the same as any other article, noting that they provide useful information and provide a mechanism for the encylopedia to grow...I do not see any reason to create new deletion processes to circumvent or abuse those that we already have. Especially not ones that involve automatic and unsupervised mass deletion.	26	7		78.79%	No change
Hut 8.5	21:46, 23 January 2010	"I propose that we set up a wikiproject to source unreferenced BLPs."	21	0		100.00%	Technical Unanimous support
User:MickMacNee and User:Ikip		Anger at history of RFC					N/A
User:HJ Mitchell		Generally similar to Jehochman, except: Mass drive-by prodding would be discouraged and attempts should be made to limit the number of "BLP prods" at any one time to ~1000 A log should be created where editors must record the removal of "BLP prods" after proper sourcing or report others who improperly remove the tag (similar to special enforcement)	12	1			Stricker
User:LeadSongDog		"immediately...wp:userfied to the creating editors space by a bot, much in the way of user:CorenSearchBot's handling of gross copyvios"	7	3			Technology Userfication
User:Looie496		"No articles should be deleted using automated tools."	37	1			Technology
User:Balloonman		"...create a tool that can notify these projects and key editors what unsourced BLP's exist under their purvue. "	28	0
User:Balloonman		"modify the template for unsource blp's so that they are not indexed"	6	8
User:Jake Wartenberg		unwatched BLPs should be indefinitely semi-protected.	13	1
User:Rd232		Unsourced BLPs should be incubated after a time (or in some cases userfied).	11	8
User:FT2		creation of a "Draft:" namespace	11	5
User:The-Pope echoed by User:Cenarium		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" (ie MOS type ones). Get ALL of the projects on board. Get a bot/code/something quicker and smarter than me to auto-generate the lists based on the intersection of Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:WikiProject XYZ articles It needs some smarts, cause the project cats are on the talk pages, but the unreferenced BLPs are on the main pages, but I can do it for a project at a time using WP:AWB, so it must be able to be done. 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.	14	1			Technical
User:SirFozzie		Find something you can live with, and find it soon. Show that you can be part of a solution, and not just a part of a discussion of a problem. Sitting down and not accepting anything will mean that the situation will just go on without you.	14	17			N/A
User_talk:Mod_mmg	08:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)	Any change to policy needs more consensus than this. Give editors a chance, they will all references in their own time, all BLPs are works-in-progress as long as it remains a biography of a living person and not a dead one.	3	2	?		Give the editors a chance to rectify any referencing issues before you charge on with the deletion proccess!
User:Johnbod		Why Unreferenced BLPs are NOT problematic	21	4

Summary of Phase I

Phase I closing summary

This has been one of the largest and most complex requests for comment within the community for some time, with 470 editors producing over 200,000 words of commentary. The majority of views and comments are clearly the result of thoughtful contemplation on the part of editors who have taken the time to inform themselves of the issues, and everyone should be applauded for considering this matter seriously. Those who have taken part have the best interests of the encyclopedia and the project at heart, and there is a good deal of merit, based on policy, practice and practicality, in each of the major positions put forward. It is also important to note that the majority of those who participated did so relatively early in the RfC, and are unlikely to have reviewed some of the later views and proposals; therefore, it is not possible to accurately assess consensus on these views. After reading this RfC, I can say categorically that Wikipedians are dedicated to the ongoing development of a comprehensive, accurate, and constantly improving encyclopedia; however, there are very diverse views on how this can best be achieved.

There appears to be a broad consensus that:

• Unreferenced BLPs are only a small segment of potentially or actually problematic BLPs.
• There are reasons to place additional emphasis on the sourcing of BLPs, and that this category of articles is more sensitive to inaccuracy than others (although opinions on the degree to which they are more sensitive was subject to a broader spectrum of opinion).
• Deletion decisions should be made with human input, and should not solely rely on technical methods.
• Article creators, wikiprojects dedicated to improvement of unsourced BLPs, and wikiprojects dedicated to various topics should all be alerted to the existence of said articles, and be encouraged (and supported) in sourcing them. Several views discussed methods in which this information could be disseminated, some of which have already been put into place, and there was no significant opposition to this position.
  • Related to this was some discussion of whether there should be a significant site-wide campaign to involve a larger segment of the editing community in a BLP-sourcing project, which also did not meet with significant opposition.
• A smaller number of individuals pointed out the difficulty of maintaining and improving the constantly-enlarging encyclopedia while the number of regularly active contributors has remained relatively static in recent years; this view, while not very widely discussed, did not meet with significant opposition.
  • In this same vein, others pointed out that quality expectations have changed significantly over the years, and that there was no simple method for editors to identify articles they had created and/or significantly edited which required referencing. Prolific editors who have remained active over several years are just now discovering the extent to which they are being asked to improve and reference unsourced BLPs, many of which were created some years ago.

The three major positions presented were:

1. Mass deletion of all articles identified as biographies of living people that had no reference sources, with varying views on how this would be accomplished. Most related views implied that all unsourced BLPs would be deleted over a very short period (days to weeks), with minimal or no attempt to improve the articles.
2. No change in current deletion practices and no special deletion practices for BLPs, with most related views supporting sourcing unreferenced BLPs or at a minimum reviewing them to ensure they were properly categorized
3. Special PROD processes for BLPs, with widely diverse opinions on duration that articles would remain prodded, criteria for de-prodding, and the number of articles being prodded at any given time.

Related to all three of these views were concerns about how to best manage the reviewing of unsourced BLPs to (a) ensure they were actually unsourced, (b) prevent overloading of the relevant processes, and (c) prioritize which (subgroups of) articles would be reviewed, with soft or hard deadlines for various checkpoints, and a clear objective for completion of the reviews.

Consensus

Of these three broad categories of views, there is a surprisingly clear consensus that some form of BLP-PROD is the preferred method of addressing unsourced BLPs. The majority of opposition to each of the views proposing a BLP-PROD variation related to the length of time an article would be prodded (which ranged from 2 days to over a month), or some other factor specific to that proposal. A notable but small minority opposed the basic concept.

There was also a robust consensus that a separate process should be developed to address newly-created unreferenced BLPs, in order to prevent further accumulation of unsourced BLPs; however, fewer editors commented specific to this point, which arose in several views.

Objectives for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II

• Develop consensus on the details of a BLP-PROD process, most critically on the duration of a BLP-PROD
• Develop a timeline with specific objectives to ensure that the current backlog of unsourced BLPs is reviewed and improved or otherwise addressed. Factors to consider include how to prioritize subgroups of articles within the process, development and centralisation of tools and resources for editors to identify and improve articles, and methods to involve the larger editing community.
• Develop consensus on standards for newly-created BLPs. Factors to consider include tools and processes to support new editors, integration of the process with new page patrol, and time frame for sourcing of new articles.

It is clear that our editing community has started to address the issues raised in this RfC, as several tools have been developed to assist editors in identifying and improving these articles; the number of unsourced BLPs has already been reduced by more than 10%. Continued effort to involve and support an even broader segment of the community should be considered an important priority; several communication tools have been discussed in the RfC.

Please address any questions or comments on this close to the adjacent talk page in order to centralise the discussion. This close is submitted under my own signature, independent of any other offices or permissions I hold. Risker (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus on further steps. This closure should be retracted and the idea of a new Prod postponed until it gains consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Phase I was improperly closed, and only one position was advocated, which was against the agreed upon intentions of closing this RFC for phase II originally. Okip 12:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stop beating the horse, as its dead already. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:POT Okip 13:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't even make any sense -- which probably shouldn't surprise me coming from you. I'm not the one who's been posting tl;dr screeds about this issue. As such, I'm not sure you understand what WP:POT even means. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Phase II

BLP PROD process drafting

Establish the details of a BLP PROD process. This should probably be based on Jehochman's view (the variation on that theme which had by far the most support) as a baseline for discussion. However a process of this type has already been drafted at Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs, and moving discussion there to develop that proposed process would save time and energy - as well leaving more space for discussion here in this RFC of the other issues. Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Details from Phase 1

This is the detail of the proposal made by User:Jehochman.

1. Any article that satisfies the attack page criteria should be deleted on sight.
2. Biographies of living persons (BLP) articles that are unreferenced should be proposed for deletion (prod).
3. Prodding should proceed at a reasonable rate to allow interested editors the chance to add sources. The volume of proposed deletions should not be unreasonably large. Discussion can establish what is a reasonable pace.
4. After five seven days, any article so tagged may be deleted, or moved to the Wikipedia:Article incubator if it shows promise.
5. Prod notices should not be removed, nor should articles be undeleted, unless proper references are added present. Anybody who engages in mass de-prodding or undeletion without adding references being present risks a block for disruption.
6. All editors are invited to participate in this BLP cleanup campaign.

The major objections to this were:

• The WP:PROD process should not be altered, so some other name should be used
• It is open to abuse
• The timeline is not specified
• PRODding should not happen without an attempt to source the article
• Article editors need to be notified of a pending deletion
• Quality of references to be added is unclear
• Some editors disagree with deletion as a solution altogether

These objections will need to be addressed in order to create a broadly supported policy, and as Rd232 suggests, Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs is probably the best place for this to continue. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New vs. Existing PROD process.

I would favor using the existing PROD process, with the flexibility for any editor to remove one or several PRODs in good faith. Like the traditional PROD process, the next step is for the PROD nominator to see if the problem still exists, and send the article to AfD if it has not. If we have general consensus to use a PROD process, then mass-PROD-removal would be considered disruptive, just as it is today. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:PROD got nearer rejection than acceptance of changing PROD in the necessary way (to prevent removal of tag without adding sources) as totally contrary to the spirit of PROD. I suggest the way forward would be to list Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs on WP:CENT and develop that process based on Phase I discussion (which it's very compatible with), leaving open the possibility that the process so developed can be merged as a special section of PROD. (I doubt that would be acceptable, but the point is it needn't be settled now.) Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The seven day period wait is ridiculously short, it is the same as zero. Editors who create unsourced BLPs *in good faith* are probably newbies who have not yet read the guidelines, cannot be expected to check their watchlists every day, will not quite understand what the prod means, and will not be able to respond to it in that time frame. So the handling of those BLPs will have to be done by experienced editors who are willing to take time from their personal wikiprojects to do community service. Source-or-die is basically a hostage situation: "either someone does what I want done, or I will kill the work of a random newbie". Since the tagger must at least read the article before tagging it, we can assume that attack pages have been speedily deleted and potentially problematic contents has been deelted. In that case, allowing the BLP to live for another month or another year will be a negligible risk, will avoid lots of bad feeelings, and will actually mean *less* work for everybody in the end. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Newbies who actually create an article tend to come back and see what happens, I think, on a short time scale of hours/days, when BLP-PROD tags would be applied. In any case it is not merely "source or delete" - articles may also get incubated, with the creator getting a notice. Articles will live at least a month in the incubator, and there's no reason we couldn't agree longer timespan for incubated BLP-PRODs. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if the asking rate is high, I think some people, including established editors will just put in fake sources, or add a ref at a end of one paragraph but it only covers the last part of the sentence. People try this all the time at FAR and hope that a reviewer will just see a cite at the end of the para and assume everything is accounted for, when it usually isn't. And it's enough to catch a lot of people. I wouldn't be surprised if heaps of people did it everywhere else either, especially if they then go and cite a non-English book that nobody could catch onto. Once I even saw someone reference an uncited FA by circularly referencing a copy of Wikipedia somewhere and sometimes even cutting and pasting a copyvio to solve the BLP unsourced. Unless people get down to basics, rules are pretty irrelevant, let's be frank, many rules on Wikipedia are just used selective to operate a caste system; eg one guy (admins) deleting sourced info that they don't like and citing BLP even though it was sourced to a newspaper, because the info didn't suit them, because undue weight or whatever, true or not, then they go and rv some guy who blanks uncited negative info, eg criminal behaviour by an opposition politician. People shouldn't be fooled by metrics as lots of people have and continue to make wiki-careers by gaming stats and making themselves look better. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please people get off the idea that deleting articles, deleting USEFUL INFORMATION is a solution to anything. As Jorge said, read the article. If you doubt the veracity of the content or the sources, look at other sources, look at other articles. If it checks out, ADD the references yourself. We have to assume anybody who has found their way into this discussion is sufficiently experienced in wikipedia editing to know how to do this. If you can't find anything, then there is probably something wrong with the article. Take the article up on NOTABILITY grounds, through AfD, publicly in the ONE PLACE that is already there for people to look at, analyze and discuss problematic articles. In the week that this article goes through all that analysis, a bunch of people will read it, attempt to source it and it won't die needlessly from the neglect of a newbie editor. The AfD process is too fast and abusive as it is, but at least it has some chance in public. Through two months of this RFC, it should be clear to anybody but the incredibly dense that there is no draconian solution any better than what already exists. What needs to change are the habits, the laziness of the complainers. Instead of taking 5 seconds to edit in a PROD that could lead to the deletion of the article, spend a minute and source the thing. You've saved the article, you've saved the controversy. If people would do this stuff instead of inventing more layers of abusive administrators, we will be left with a relative handful of problem articles that can go through the system meat grinder like vanity articles, useless frivolity and Stephen Colbert articles.Trackinfo (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Details from Phase 1: an alternative view

This should have been included weeks ago, when this RFC was improperly closed and only one position was advocated:

This is the comments made by User:DGG, which received the highest proportion of editors (91.67%):

For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless. Of course we should we should work on them, at the pace at which we can manage it, with the special problem that the author is generally no longer be around to help. What I think is extremely dangerous is people nominating them or any article for deletion without first looking for sources, because it takes no more work to try for basic sourcing. We might even have a priority category for "I tried, but further help is needed." -- that's the sort of think I'd like to work on. What is even more dangerous is deletion without looking. As a related example, let me give the 40 prods of this nature I worked on in the last two days, about 10 were easily sourceable. About 5 were a real challenge--for some I too needed some help to do it right--and trying and not succeeding with them is not something anyone should be blamed for. The other half I decided could not be sourced in any reasonable way, or were so unlikely I at least wasn't going to bother, and I let them stand. But since they were prods, anyone else could look at them and try. Frequently I see ones I've given up on done easily by someone else. Some of the ones I found easily were ones where I can understand another person in perfect good faith might not think were likely enough to be worth the bother. That is the reason summary deletion is inappropriate--there are only a few special classes of things where one or two people can securely decide. Among the articles listed for deletion, and which could be deleted under the proposed ruling was one which was easily verifiable that the person was an ambassador, and one a member of a state legislature--things said on the face of the article. . In both cases, it took about a minute to source them. With respect to the arbitrary deletions we are concerned with, I note what Rebecca said above--deleting an article that is on its face probably notable without checking is about as destructive to the encyclopedia as one can get.

The offer to undelete on request in ludicrous as a solution--for most editors cannot see the articles to tell. For those of us who can, we would of course be able to check and see if we could source, and undelete if we could. I certainly would not undelete in this circumstance unless I could source, But relying on a few of us to check is only practical if the people deleting are more responsible than some of them so far have been.

Okip 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Close This RfC

Ok, based upon the comments on the talk page to my summary, I propose we close this RfC. I'm going to break my proposal to close into two parts. The first part deals with items where I feel that consensus has been reached. The second part deals with a compromise solution proposed on the talk page. For purposes of dates, I used March 1 as the end date for this RfC.

Part 1: Items where consensus seems to be clear

The first part being issues which I think the consensus is clearly defined. In supporting/opposing this, please do so based upon whether or not you agree/disagree that consensus supports the item in question---not whether you agree or disagree with it.

1. An acceptance of a "sticky" 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 new 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.)
3. We want to recruit as many people/projects as possible to this clean up effort. This could include, but is not limited to, contacting projects directly, asking the Foundation to put a banner on the page, making announcements in Signpost, having a "clean-up" blitz, etc.
4. We do not want the clean up effort to be a haphazard mass deletion spree.
5. We want/need time to make this clean up a reality.
6. Many of the existing BLP tagged as "unsourced" are not problematic in that they actually do contain sources.
7. 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.
8. Any proposal to speedy delete unsourced/poorly sourced BLP's has been rejected. This does not negate already existing criteria for CSD.
9. Any notion to automate deletions of old unsourced BLPs has been rejected.

Again, I am not asking if you agree/disagree with the above summary, but whether or not you agree/disagree that consensus seems to support the above.

Part 1 Agree

1. Agree - good summary. Seems to be clear consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree as nom---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
   • Balloonman per: Consensus is forming: an alternative view why didn't you include Bearcat's proposal which was the most popular proposal from phase II which can be summed up as:
     "I'm not entirely convinced that we actually need to create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and regulation here."
     Isn't many of your points simply a repeat of Jclemens proposal, which was soundly defeated by almost a two to one margin? There are many other questions I have about the validity of this consensus, which are on the talk page. (refactored out repetitive sentence)Okip 14:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
     • • Simply because Bearcat's proposal had what 16 supports, when weighed against the 163 supports for Jehochman's proposal in phase 1 (which I strongly opposed) Bearcat's proposal comes up far short in overcoming that proposal.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
         • I addressed this before, then refactored it out.[1] Unlike the way in which yourself and Risker advocated only one position, both table summaries which I gave showed ALL positions. In the first round, Risker ignored Jclemens proposal, Collect's proposal, and DGG's proposal, which came after Jehochman's proposal. DGG's proposal had the most proportional support (91.67%), "deleting an article that is on its face probably notable without checking is about as destructive to the encyclopedia as one can get". If you take Jehochman's proposal (163), against either Jclemens (83) and Collects proposal (83), you get 66% support. Despite Risker advocating only one position, ignoring the intention of phase II, the highest proportional position was Bearcat's. It is a sad commentary on this proposal that editors have to go to such lengths to manufacture consensus.Okip 11:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
           • "Manufacturing consensus" is what you've been trying to do this whole time, by constantly citing proposals with a percentage and forgetting that what counts on RFCs is the amount of supporters not the percentage. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree Mlpearc (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Agree; this much at least seems clear. NW (Talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
5.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
6. --KrebMarkt 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
7. These all seem quite clear. Resolute 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
8. yup--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
9. - Philippe 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
10. I can live with this. ϢereSpielChequers 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Fully agree. Jogurney (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Agree. THF (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
13. That does appear to be the consensus --Jubilee♫clipman 01:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Removing my vote after reading the followup alternatives and comments. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Agree J04n(talk page) 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
15. agree and I think the onus is on anyone who signs saying they disagree, to show WHY they think consensus isn't clear on these points, not just claim that it's not. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Agree - Kevin (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Good job, RxS (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Agree though it's unfortunate that this is about where things were 2 weeks ago. I and many others much earlier put up almost identical summaries but were all drowned out. A few sizable concerns aren't addressed, but that doesn't change the fact that I endorse this summary as a proper review of consensus. Let's get on with it, people. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
19. This resolves a good deal of the main issues. Mr.Z-man 06:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Agree. Pcap ping 06:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Agree, but very disappointed that the one thing that can happen now, #3 above, has still been left in the hands of a few users and projects. Wolterbot hasn't done a cleanup list since December (not his fault, relies on the database dump). NOT GOOD ENOUGH. WP:Aust had 1652 listed then. We have less than 600 today. There have probably been 10-20 editors working on this for the past month. It takes me 5-10 minutes to do an update, or 20-30 minutes to do a fresh generation of our working list. Time that could done by a bot, but the only botmaker who was interested in currently banned. Lists of unreferenced BLPs from June 2008 don't interest me. Lists of unreferenced Olympians, or Engineers, or Politicians might. We don't need an RFC to do this, just some proper emphasis to be applied from above. Or is it really not that important to those running the show?The-Pope (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Agree - This seems to be what we've agreed on. Let's move forward. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Agree - but only as long as the perspective: not asking if you agree/disagree with the above summary, but whether or not you agree/disagree that consensus seems to support the above, is not lost.
24. Agree seems to be supported by most (if not fully be me!) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
25. OK at least this helps us move in the right direction. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Wish that we could say more towards good sourcing, but of course, allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia will always let a few idiots in. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Agree, though I wish that #1 applied to existing articles as well as newly created ones. Deor (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Agree Looks about right. Some of it may not be so agreed upon yet though. Brambleclawx 18:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Agree with points 1-5 and 9 in part. The others are unnecessary commentary and could be dropped, but are harmless. For #5 it doesn't matter if many or few do flagged BLPs contain sources, the proposal will deal with it either way. It doesn't matter whether sourced BLPs are problematic or not, that is beyond the scope of this specific proposal. For #7, it doesn't matter whether an unsourced BLP is harmless or not, we'll source it either way. It doesn't matter whether expectations shifted, this is a decision going forward. For #8, I think we agree that some special action is needed for new unsourced BLPs, and consensus isn't clear yet on the specific process. For #9, if you mean bot-driven or unconditional, yes, in approving this proposal we're rejecting a completely automated deletion process... but it is "automatic" in the sense that if a BLP cannot be sourced, it will get deleted, period. I don't think it hurts anything to add these points, but I think we have consensus even if people disagree with them, because they don't change the outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Agree. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
31. Agree, wish that more could be done to have a timelined PROD, but consensus has not been for it. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Agree   pablo_hablo. 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Agree as a alternative, because it is actually nothing more than a restatement of current policy. For point 1, the devil will be in the details, and I see "sticky" as not necessarily meaning more than the option which will always remain, to take a prod to AfD on the grounds of being contentious, and that's enough of a check on misinterpretation in either direction. For point 2, it is exactly statement of current policy, so I don't know why it was worded as a change. I don;t think any of this actually necessary, but nothing is in the above that would make things worse, or prevent the current improvement from continuing. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Agree - And share Coffee's opinion here. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
35. Agree - This throws some stuff out and some stuff in, seems to be a pretty fair compromise which I will sign-up to. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Okay Jehochman ^Brrr 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Agree - primarily because using ordinary PROD has too low a visibility. I think that BLP PRODS should be included in deletion sorting (e.g. anything NZ related would then appear on my radar) and where possible, pages should be tagged with appropriate wikiprojects. I would see 7 days as a minimum, 14 preferable. dramatic (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Concur - not seeing any reason that this needs to stay open, and I agree with the read on consensus.-- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
39. Agreed. Why not? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
40. Yes, it's a working solution. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
41. Agree Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
42. 'Agree with minor reservations about the "stickiness" of the new "BLP-PROD" category allowing that in some cases it may be improperly applied, and that in those cases it ought not be "sticky". Collect (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
43. This seems to be accurate. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
44. Agree that these seem to be to be agreed upon, and that they are part of the proper way forward. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
45. Agree especially with sensitivity to not deleting items in haste, while still supporting existing deletion critera. ejly (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
46. Agree Sole Soul (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
47. Agree in general. Fram (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
48. Agree. JamieS93^❤ 14:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
49. Aye. —ShinyG (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
50. Agree that this seems to be an accurate reflection of consensus to this point. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
51. Agree with DGG that mass deletion of old articles for lacking the current style of references is extremely reckless. I have been participating here for five and a half years. When I started we didn't use the more rigorous and robust references we use now. Articles then generally used naked inline references, or merely had an external links section. I started, or was an early contributor, to a number of biographical articles that would not be considered referenced by today's standards. And recently some of those articles last worked on four or more years ago -- articles on perfectly notable individuals -- were nominated for deletion. I think the over-hasty nominations of those articles is the kind of mistake DGG is warning against. In all of those instances converting or updating the references was, in fact, trivial. An article may not have been worked on for four years not because it was "abandoned", but rather because there have been no new developments to include. Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
52. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
53. Agree. Not entirely with all of these individually (depending on how implemented) but they are reasonably well supported. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
54. Agree. I don't necessarily agree with the everything, but this does seem to be the general consensus. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
55. Agree this was my sense of what people were leaning to in the initial RFC, there were individual differences in each of these, sure, but overall, a desire for a longer timeframe, a warning on new pages, and something similar to BLP-PROD seemed to be the sway of the discussion. --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
56. Agree I can accept this -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
57. Agree There does see to be a concensus to the specific bullets mentioned. BLP seems to have clear value in Wikipedia, and the histories of BLP pages seems to support (for the most part) the nine bullet items listed. Alvincura (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
58. Agree. Quantpole (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
59. Agree as summarized. --Magicus69 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
60. Agree --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
61. Agree - However there currently exists no means to spot that newly created articles are BLP and no machine system could make this determination. Simply requiring that no account create a new article until a week after that account has made an edit that did not get rolled back would help a lot with this. Established users would be creating the BLPs and so have them on their watchlists for changes. Hcobb (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
62. Concur with consensus, whether I not I believe all the terms are good for Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
63. Agree - Ditto on Hcobb. rkairis (rkairis) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
64. Agree, taking all the pros and cons into consideration, it seems this compromise solution is acceptable to the majority of the community—to rectify a very serious concern without unduly burdening editors. It simply implements more effectively our core content policy of verifiability where it is most needed.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
65. Agree reasonable compromise platform. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
66. Agree, seems to nicely sum up the general consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
67. Agree - looks right to me. Good summation! - Alison ^❤ 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
68. Agree -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
69. Agree. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
70. Agree on only these points. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
71. Agree Without going back and re-analysing every point, this does pretty much sum up the situation in accordance with my understanding -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
72. Agree - a proper summary of community consensus. Nifboy (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
73. Agree - Very reasonable proposal and well thought out. David Straub (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
74. Agree - Very good summary of the consensus. LK (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
75. Agree Consensus seems clear (and for the record I don't agree with everything in this summary but I think it is clear that as a summary of what the community believes it is pretty clear). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
76. Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
77. Agree - This much makes sense (broadly) and so has drawn broad support. Details can be ironed out later. User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
78. Agree - Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
79. Agree with minor reservations: Wikidemon, above, gets at most of them, and I do not believe the summary to be as neutral as it could be, but it is close enough, and as someone else said, this does move us in the right direction. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
80. Works for me. MER-C 07:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
81. Agree--Plad2 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
82. Agree I think this is as close to neutral as we are going to get. A step in the right direction. Freikorp (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
83. Agree. Jehochman's proposal received wide enough support that I would call it a consensus on point 1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
84. Agree — well done on wading through all this and producing a sensible summary. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
85. Agree - lot of work done, balanced outcome. My-dfp (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
86. Agree - not do we need to fix issues, but we also need to be seen to be fixing them. Gnangarra 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
87. Agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
88. Agree --This seems like what most people agreed onChaosdruid (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
89. Agree A reasonable summary of events. --Jayron32 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
90. Agree --A way forward in that creators of new BLP entries are informed what they need to do, and old BLP entries are not just junked Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
91. 'Agree-- I just finished a writing field test. PERFECT conclusion to this long- dragged out spiel. Full support. Buggie111 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
92. 'Agree-- I very much support making Wikipedia an encyclopedia that reasonably adheres to its own stated core policy of verifiability. BLP's are a great place to start. And to get going, we must stop the problem from getting bigger each day. So yes, the focus on preventing another slew of unsourced new BLPs is appropriate. N2e (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
93. We seem to mostly agree on this.  Sandstein  19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
94. Agree - That appears to be the consensus, and I agree with 88 % of it. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
95. Agree - seems to be a clear and accurate summary of the consensus. Anaxial (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
96. Weak support I'm not totally convinced this is necessary but I think it's okay to inculcate the idea of using sources into people creating articles. This could be a good educational tool. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
97. Agree per DGG and Aarghdvaark. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
98. Agree. There seems to be consensus for all of the above. Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
99. Agree. Consensus was reached in phases I and II for all of the above. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
100. Agree per all of the above. MLauba (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
101. Agree items 1–4, merge items 5, 6 & 9 into item 4 as agreed-upon particularities thereof. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
102. Agree It seems to be a fair representation of what most people were saying. prashanthns (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
103. Agree. I believe this reflects consensus as accurately as is possible. Wine Guy~Talk 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
104. Agree. Appears to be consensus to me. Captain panda 02:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
105. Agree Appears to be as much consensus as one could expect. I wish the consensus were a little different, but that's not what's being asked here, and honestly, I think this is (in total) a signficant positive step. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC) (corrected quotes --Joe Decker (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
106. Agree, fair summary. -- Avenue (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
107. Agree, but IMO the consensus is incompletely stated, because it fails to mention that, when deleting unsourced contributions by novice editors, it is important to explain the reason and help the contributor understand how to improve the article. This was the first principle in the BLP "Content" RfC, and AFAIK wasn't rejected in later views. The basic idea is that we can be firmer without being bitey. - Pointillist (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
108. Agree — I have some reservations, but this is where we're at and it's a start. Add some from the next part and we're good. Jack Merridew 05:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
109. Good summary.Tim Song (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
110. Agree with this reading as accurately reflecting consensus 70.160.29.112 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC).
111. Agree. Lara 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
112. Agree. RT292 | ^{(Talk| Contribs)}08:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
113. Agree. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
114. Agree not necessarily happy about all aspects, but best way to achieve consensus Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
115. Agree --Pupunwiki (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
116. Agree — SpikeToronto 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
117. Agree seems to be a good summary. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
118. Agree fair assessment from my reading. Outstanding details about sticky BLP-PROD: wording and delay. Personally I'd rather immediately incubate them. For backlog, this seems a good assessment, but the details matter (especially timeline). -kslays (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
119. Agree not entirely to my liking, but imo it's a good start. _noisy jinx ^huh? 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 Disagree

1. Strongly Disagree with 1 and 2 only, for several reasons:
   1. First, Balloon's claim of consensus is simply not the case. Yesterday Ballonman posted a "consensus is forming" section on the talk page, which ignored some of the most popular proposals.
   2. Second, the harm some editors claim that unreferenced BLPs have is so out of proportion to the reality, that this unreferenced BLP danger promoted here could be called a hoax. There are much better, collaborative, less disruptive solutions to solving unreferenced BLPs, which editors have been working on, resulting in 10,000 less unreferenced BLPs.
   3. Third, Without any new bitey new rules and bureaucracy, the number of unreferenced BLPs has dropped, from 52,760 to 42,512, over 10,000 articles removed from the list. No new bitey rules are needed.
   4. Fourth how do we reconcile Balloonman's proposal, which at this writing, has 23 supports and does not mention the BEFORE requirement, with the WP:BEFORE proposal which has 19 supports above? I think there would be wider community support if a before requirement was put in, I may support such a proposal also. Also with Bearcat's proposal, which at 16 support and 1 oppose is the most popular proposal in phase II? Okip 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

      The WP:BEFORE proposal has 19 supports and 16 opposes, it would be a bit of a stretch say that "consensus is clearly defined" there. Mr.Z-man 19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

      You selectively ignore the most popular proposal in phase II, Bearcat's proposal. Okip 02:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Disagree. Gosh, the same folks who've been pushing this think they see consensus they agree with. Shocking. I certainly hope we get a formal proposal out of this and have a site-wide discussion about that proposal. Wearing people down!=consensus. If you think it does, let's hold a formal vote. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
   1. Actually, if you look at my stances, particularly in round 1, I have been opposed to the careless CSD/BLP-PROD positions. The above summary is one of what is the forming consensus here at the RfC---not my stance. As for Okip's pointing to Bearcat's proposal... you cannot disregard about 200 people who supported the BLP-PROD proposal from the first part of this RfC. Those supporters far outwiegh the few who commented in round 2 that no change should be made. We can't ignore part 1, as part two had the objective of focusing on the issues identified in part 1, not to override it. I view it as a success that round 2 clarified that we don't want BLP-PROD to be widely accepted on old BLP's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
      1. This is simply not about BearCat's proposal. Unlike the way in which yourself and Risker advocated only one position, both table summaries which I gave showed ALL positions. In the first round, Risker page protected the page, and ignored Jclemens proposal, Collect's proposal, and DGG's proposal, which came after Jehochman's proposal. It is a sad commentary on this proposal that editors have to go to such lengths to manufacture consensus. Okip 12:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
         1. Give the editors a chance.Mod mmg (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Disagree. I came here from a note of my talk page saying 60,000 articles are going to be deleted...  ! I see this as further evidence that the deletionist editors have further taken over wikipedia, one of the reasons why I edit wikipedia much less than I used to. What is the point of putting in the effort to improve articles when there is a substantial chance they'll just be deleted and all that work of yours and others goes straight down the drain? I'm generally against very large number of deletions in one fell swoop. We already have tools for that, via AfD etc... Mathmo ^Talk 11:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
   1. I'm confused by this comment, since you're disagreeing with the forming consensus which explicitly states any proposal or notion to speedy delete, or automate the deletion of, any articles has been rejected. Are you disagreeing with these statements (i.e., that you feel there is not a consensus to protect these articles from deletion), or is this a blanket disagreement for the entire RFC? I'm thinking it's the latter, and I'd suggest this is a poor way to get the point across. The RFC as a whole has moved past the point of "do we need this discussion?", and is much nearer completion. I think if you look closely, it's not as bad as you think - 60,000 articles are not at risk of summary execution, for example. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      1. This part of the proposal only addresses NEW BLPs, it does not address the 60K articles that you were notified about. And then, it will only delete after a week with a BLP-PROD, which for a newly created BLP should be more than enough time to get sourced.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
         1. Ooooooh it will only delete after one week. That's good? What is everybody's fascination with deleting articles? If you find the need to delete an article, any article, do it on the grounds we have already established. In other words, let it stand the test of notability. Run it through the already existing AfD. At least there, it will get some attention--a few people will actually google the name and find some information on a subject they don't know and understand. Most articles THERE get improved by nature. Don't set up a separate location to run your deleting process through in a separate super secret location that most people, even some people, might regularly check. Vocal as I have been, I've been having a hard time finding any of these consensus proposals to get behind because hidden under the surface, someone is still trying to invent new and devious ways to delete more articles. You do not seem to understand, most editors don't understand any of this stuff. They will never understand it. You can't MAKE THEM understand it. All they will see is the results of your destruction. And it will piss them off.Trackinfo (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
            1. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? The thrust isn't to delete the new articles, it's to get them sourced right up front so that less effort is wasted by deletions. The mechanism selected is secondary, but that goal of getting the new articles off on the right foot is beyond reproach. User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Disagree. The introduction of new articles to the Wikipedia should not be difficult (reverted at the first step), living persons or not. If some of the articles do not follow requirements, administrator may be in a good position to spread the word among those (editors or groups) who can make it better. And, if several people who state some expertize in the field, have grounds to refuse and recommend deletion, then do it. After all, networking is what Wiki is (was?) about, no destruction. --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
   1. Please see the instructions at the top of the section. This isn't about what individual users prefer, but what we have consensus on through the 2 parts of this RFC. Mr.Z-man 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Disagree User:Mr.Z-man Okip has it nailed. DES ^(talk) 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

   Umm, User:Mr.Z-man is #19 in the 'agree' section. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

   Mis read sig on response as sig on comment, sorry. DES ^(talk) 01:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Disagree although it looks too late to actually look at what ideas actually have consensus at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Disagree. These proposals are too restrictive. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Very strongly disagree. These proposals are not consensus; they never were. They are an echo-chamber effect propduced by an erroneous closure of part I and a group of Concerned Ctizens agreeing with each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Disagree Points 1 and have no consensus at all, as I have shown before. Just that somebody is pushing them. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Disagree on point 1. Poulsen (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Disagree - as a distortion of existing processes which work more-or-less: for example there can be no such thing as a sticky prod: "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the prod tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." --Rumping (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Disagree with point 1. I have yet to see consensus on this, although I am open to evidence that shows it. The other points seem fine. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Disagree on point 1. The rest seems reasonable, but please note that I currently support the alternative proposal to close without added bureaucracy, given that progress currently seems to be being made without any rule changes. If that effort falters, I would happily endorse the proposal above, with the exception of point 1. -- The Anome (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Disagree. "Consensus" is something that "most everybody" agrees. In some of the items listed there is arguably not even a majority vote, much less a consensus — and that among the 400-odd people who took part in this discussion. Those 50,000 unsourced BLPs represent some 50,000 editors whose opinion is likely to be very different than that of this sample. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Weak disagree, as per Okip . I know how childish or immature this view might be, but I'm speaking my mind here. It's not possible to arrive at a consensus that suits everyone, just like in the real world. When we apparently arrive at one, some people will start complaining about how significant or popular their views are, and that they have been left out. From there, we go back to discussion again and the cycle repeats continuously. _LDS (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong Disagree. This entire process has been a railroad to confuse and misdirect opinion. I personally have tried to be very active in this discussion, only to watch most of my comments become hidden from public view. Even with my efforts, I can't keep up with the immense level of B.S. in all of these proposals. Consensus is absolutely impossible. It is not possible for a reasonable editor to be expected to keep up with this mountain of misdirected and ultimately fraudulent discussion. The sheep who have voted support could not possibly understand all of the ramifications of their vote. All of this must be discarded.Trackinfo (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Disagree item 7. There may be consensus that some existing unsourced BLPs that are neutral and factual, albeit unsubstantiatedly, may not harm their subjects, and that they consequently do not harm WP any more than similar non-BLP articles; but I do not see a consensus for the position that unsourced articles do no harm to WP, nor for the degree of harm that they do. I see consensus that they should, at least eventually, be addressed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Disagree – While I believe Jehochman has a solid foundation for a civilization that will survive, I suspect that a seven day timeline may be implemented in a way that bites the newbies. It makes much more sense to follow Jimbo Whales’ lead, with regard to timeline, as it respectfully requires the newbies (like me) to grow into the Wiki community. Through feedback, this approach places the responsibility for learning onto their shoulders allowing them to grow, but only if they wish to participate. I would not have an issue with a BOT cleanup if the timeline was along the lines suggested by JW, and there was an absence of any activity on that site suggesting compliance. I like the idea of an incubator for those BLPs that have marginal sources. The one I looked at actually had (non-inline) sources that support the article; however, the author of those sources and the BLP are one and the same. While this situation could be misinterpreted as being self-serving, in my humble opinion the author has a lot to offer in their area of expertise.CUoD (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Unbelievably Strongly Disagree: No more deletion, and no more regulations. Keep status quo.Likebox (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Disagree on part 1, doubt part 2, and suspect that there is as much consensus on "We don't need more bureaucracy and more regulations" as any of these. The remaining parts seem actually to be consensus - or at least to accurately deny a consensus to change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Disagree because alternative options are attracting an increasing number of votes as participation widens to embrace more typical editors. This approach is a huge improvement on the initial "we must delete everything; there is no counter-argument; rubber-stamp here" stance, and I could live with it myself, but I don't think support is decisive enough to call it a consensus. Certes (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
22. DisagreeI go along with Certes on the consensus issue and JamAKiska and Septentrionalis on the substance of the bitey nature of sticky BLPProd and part 1 being the problem. Change the guideline on referencing BLP, tag as unreferenced, notify the creator and let the bots warn the projects, and use the slower option of standard prod/afd if necessary for recalcitrant or more dubious articles. I don't think a week gives enough time for new editors who may not be sufficiently addicted to Wikipedia yet to log on daily to notice and satisfy the sticky prod conditions--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Disagree No (well) sourced piece of information should be deleted. Ever. If the only well sourced pieces of information we have about John Doe (CEO of ACME industries) is that he founded ACME and that he was a convicted for DUI, for indecent exposure, for beating his wife and for being a child molester, his biography at Wikipedia should present those pieces of information. If someone wants to call John Doe (CEO of ACME industries) an "attack page", he/she is welcome to add all the remaining sourced info about John Doe (namely, his entrepenurial successes, his charitable donations and his love of pets and animals). This notion of deleting "incomplete" biographies is backdoor censorship (Who in heaven decides what "incomplete" means in this context?). OTOH, unsourced or poorly sourced "data" should be deleted on sight. Randroide (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Disagree--Oneiros (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Disagree due to item 1, too bitey, wide open for abuse. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
26. DisagreeNilotpal42 (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
27. Disagree no! that is only a bad move. Go the right way over afk. they are there for this job! mabdul 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
28. Disagree! It is better to have any information(unsourced or bias) then no information at all. If you continue to assign people the power and sole responsibility for deleting pages, Wikipedia will turn into dictionary.com and the like, of which we have plenty of. Don't Delete, Create! —NakedRaceCarDriver 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
29. Disagree Reason being is that there is a danger that information which is correct is deleted (despite there being no sources to back up the information). But worse than that there is a great deal of incorrect information that you can reference. I find myself in a situation where I have accurate information to contribute that has not yet been referenced anywhere and everytime I submit it, it is deleted. The only way I can get the information to stay on Wikipedia is by formally publishing the biography in a publication and then referencing it. How frustrating is that? However, there is one biography where I feel it is worth going to all of the effort of having it formally published so that I can reference it on Wikipedia. But even then an editor might inform me that the source is not good enough to be referenced. Now that requires dedication above and beyond the call of duty. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
30. Disagree The summary may be the majority view among those willing to follow this disucssion, but there doesn't appear to be consensus, and those who disagree make strong arguments that there is little evidence that unsourced BLP articles are actually a particular problem that needs a fix beyond what's available through current procedures. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Strongly Disagree I think this is stupid and is designed more to eliminate articles that certain people do not like as opposed to get more information out there, which I thought was the whole point behind Wikipedia. Biggus Dickus OMG (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    User has less than 50 edits and has been blocked.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Complainer's comment sounds reasonable. I see 300 edits since 2005 and a clean block log. Certes (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

    That comment by Balloonman was initially next to Biggus Dickus OMG's post. Check this user's history and it conforms to what Ballonman said. Complainer just put his in between, so I've moved it underneath. Hope that clears it up.Alzarian16 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

    Er, Certes, it helps if you are looking at the right person. Looking at Alzarian's post above, it looks as if my comment got moved or something happened. But, Biguus Dickus OMG has been blocked indefinitely by user:2over0 forWP:Edit warring and copyright violations at Bruce Bowen, personal attacks and inappropriate username. His first edit was not in 2005, but rather February 2, 2010. Your searches were for somebody named User:Complainer, not Biggus. It's pretty standard when a person has been blocked indefinitely, to have their voices squelched... as edit warring/personal attacks/inappropriate user name/copy vios are all sign that the person's goal isn't to contribute to the project, but rather to disrupt it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC) EDIT: here is the edit wherein Complainer inserted his comment between my note and Biggus' original post.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, Balloonman's edit came while I was writing mine, I got confused, and pasted my text a line too high. Sorry about the mess. Complainer (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

31. Strongly Disagree Whatever the merit of the arguments may be on an ethical or theoretical point of view, the resources of the editors of wikipedia are limited, and they should be spent on improving articles, not on deleting them. I am also extremely worried about the stress put on BLP as a bone of contention, as BLP represent a point of pressure on wikipedia, i.e., something we are much concerned with because of fear of angering people--usually people who do not contribute to wikipedia. Yielding on this point opens the door to special policies on, say, religious subjects. To the risk of repeating what others have said, BLP's are articles, and should be judged as such, with no special urgency, attention, labour, or concern.Complainer (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
32. Disagree Deleting the good-faith work of wiki-newbies, thereby alienating them, likely forever, does far more harm to the present and future of Wikipedia than creating a backlog of claims that need sources. EAE (Holla!) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
33. Disagree The whole business is a load of balls, in my opinion. Where are the legions of lawyers? Calum (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
34. Disagree Since I have expressed my reasons why elsewhere, & received abuse for what people think I have written & not for what I wrote, I won't repeat myself here. But I reserve my right to say "I told you so" when Wikipedia clearly starts to suffer for this WP:BLP witchhunt. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
35. Disagree There is not a consensus for more bureaucracy, even if it is believed to be a so-called 'positive step'. Consensus is, there is far too much bureaucracy already. Richard LaBorde (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 Neutral

At the moment, this page has consensus about what this page has consensus about. :)

But I'd like to suggest that this proposal to close remain open for a few days (such as through Monday).

Doing so would lessen any potential bias based on time. It would give more opportunity to hear from the self-proclaimed forgotten majority.

To some degree, we are ending where we should have started, with Balloonman's suggestion to align policy with deletion proposals (I recognize that we have some disagreement about interpretion of current policy).

But any tightening of standards should consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. Maurreen (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support some of Okip's points in the Disagree section. I think I would accept Prods that required WP:BEFORE. Maurreen (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal has some merit. But I am unhappy that it is self-reinforcing (by asking, "Do you agree that other people have agreed?). Oh, well. Maurreen (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I'm reading it right, the purpose of this page seems to be determine whether we have consensus that there's consensus. What's next: a page to determine if there's consensus that there's consensus that there's consensus? This thing has gotten way out of control, and just trying to follow the logic (?) of it requires a commitment of time and energy that imo would be better put into article-building and -improving. Whether there really is consensus here will likely be debated long and hard regardless of the immediate outcome of this RFC. Two things continue to bother me about the entire debate about unsourced BLPs:

1. It's clear that a sizable number of editors believe current policy to be woefully inadequate, although I'm unaware of any concerted effort having been made to address the problem within the confines of current policy.
2. The presumption is that the problem is urgent, although the gravity of the problem has never been adequately documented, afaik. Other than some high-profile screw-ups (e.g., the premature "death" of Ted Kennedy, where the current system worked quite well), is there any record of harm done and on what scale?

I keep encountering dire threats of Jimbo or the Foundation acting if we don't, to which I say: if the situation is half as dire as the general presumption goes, then they should act preemptively. In other words, if defamation of living persons is happening frequently and blatantly in Wikipedia articles, community consensus shouldn't be required to deal with it. If the defamation is already widespread here and hasn't been dealt with by the Foundation, then what the hell is the rush now? Rivertorch (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Point 1, I disagree with the fact that there is a consensus for BLP-PRODs, that was someone else's conclusion of a very confusing early process. That said, I'm willing to compromise my principles to accept that the oligarchy will get their enjoyment out of putting more of these defacements on legitimate articles they don't understand or don't want to take the time to improve. There should be a requirement that any editor placing such a prod must have made a reasonable effort to solve such a sourcing problem BEFORE placing such a PROD. We have plenty of discussion/consensus as to what those steps should be. What I find unacceptable is the unmentioned recourse if the PROD remains for any specific amount of time.Trackinfo (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I was sufficiently confused, immediately above, as to the ramifications of the PROD (and the hidden agenda that it leads to article deletion) is further evidence as to the fraud this discussion has become. Between jargon, deletion/moving of discussion and the sheer volume of misleading discussion, there is ZERO HOPE of getting a reasonable resolve out of this discussion. ALL EFFORTS MUST BE DISCARDED.Trackinfo (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral regarding whether or not consensus supports the item(s) 1 through 9 in question. Not enough time to be deliberate by the end of the March 1st deadline (today in PST). Thank you for the invite. AllanManangan (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 Discussion

• This is mostly a "fix" direction, and I'm worried about it lacking preventative measures. I know there's a "new unsourced 'may' be deleted" above, but even that isn't digging out the deepest roots: Educating needed at WP:NPP to keep the queue at zero, the need for more communication and less biting of new users, and closing loopholes within the article creation process. These gaps are what created the queue in the first place and we need to accept responsibility as the community as a whole to assure the pile ever stacks up higher again. It's fairly detailed and I admit it shouldn't be spelled out at length here, so could anyone suggest where I might seek further opinion on this? The pump? Separate RfC, as this could technically be considered a different problem? This aspect is at least low on drama and controversy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this new "sticky" PROD tag going to be included in Twinkle? Any new prod tags definitely out to be included in all the pertinent automated tools because many, if not most, NPP folks make extensive use of them. This will ensure new, unreferenced BLPs will get the correct prod tag. I'm sure some will get through but nothing is perfect. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be covered in the second bullet point---NPP could be one of the pages that is alerted to this change---particularly as it relates to BLP-PROD. As for preventive---I think that is what this proposal is tackling in earnest. An agreement to implement BLP-PROD and make changes to key pages to indicate that new BLP's need sources. While we may or may not live up to the goal of cleaning up the project, I hope that these changes will put a stop gap on the problem increasing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen the community has had years to educate new editors, and make our referencing policy easier for new users, the community has failed. The pile will not get higher again if this proposal passes, instead, new editors will get bitey notifications that basically say: "source this article or else"

If biting new users is your concern, you should oppose this proposal, because this proposal will have a very negative effect on new users. Okip 17:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's bitey or not depends on how the tag is worded, and how the NPP people behave. If it's confusing, cold, and bureaucratic, yes, new users will be turned off, as they already are when their first article gets deleted. But if we welcome them and give them an encouraging message, and guide them through the process, it's actually a positive in terms of making new article creation less scary. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As we all now from WP:NEWT this is not currently happening, which unfortunately is a failure of the community as a whole.

Could we guide them through the process without the threat of deletion, or, in the alternative, requiring editors follow rudimentary WP:BEFORE? Okip 18:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we can lie to them, but even without this, an article about a person with no sources is almost always under threat of deletion, WP:N generally requires sources as well. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That of course is a red herring. Handled properly, a new stub will have a source before it is an article about a person (or any subject for that matter). We've simply not had any discipline in place to date that would make that happen. If we agree there should be such a discipline, agreement on the mechanics can follow. User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the article is created with a source, then it is not going to go through the process for unsourced BLPs. Mr.Z-man 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If we get the creation mechanics right, the unsourced BLP process should only have to deal with cleaning up the old ones. Perhaps a bot-generated message something along the lines of "Thank you for creating <newstub>. While it is still fresh in your mind, please remember to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT to help protect this contribution from deletion. If you need help citing your sources, just ask at the WP:Help desk." User:LeadSongDog come howl 15:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support 3-9 but oppose 1-2, because Phase I proposals to allow uncontentious unsourced material were well reasoned (and had a high !vote count, for what it's worth). Is the change motivated by a belief that there is consensus, by genuine fear of imposed changes if we don't change ourselves, or by deletionists creating and playing on such a fear? ArbCom are judges rather than lawmakers. Jimmy Wales stated his position in Phase I, with no hint of "or else". I see no citations for threats of action by the Foundation. Maybe the bogeyman doesn't exist. Certes (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• This is all completely unnecessary. New unreferenced articles are caught literally within minutes. I'll throw out today's example. I posted James Stallworth (athlete) today. My first edit was quite rough and unreferenced (but that is the text that appears on the header permanently for a new article--I wanted to keep it clean of the wiki techno crap). Within a minute, my new article was tagged for disambiguation links--within 18 minutes it was already tagged as an unsourced BLP. All this was done by bots before the New Article patrol had a chance to attack it. Over the next several edits, I referenced everything, so the article is no longer under attack, but had I not, this would certainly have been run through the ringer.

The point I continue to make is WE DO NOT NEED FURTHER BUREAUCRACY OR RULES. Its already there for the taking. Anything you add just muddies the situation. For an editor, where is this coming from, where do I go to defend this? The amount of BS that already exists in wikipedia administration blows off most newbies. Anything you add just confuses them more.Trackinfo (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Part 2: Where consensus isn't quite as clear

It is clear that something has to be done with old unsourced BLP's. While it is debatable as to the amount of harm/damage that can be and is done by having an BLP unsourced, the tide is clear---the foundation and Jimbo want BLP's to have sources. If we don't address the situation on our own, then the Foundation/Wales may come down and make us comply. To this end, I've pulled some of the compromise suggestions raised on the talk page to make this closing proposal:

1. We as a community are committing ourselves to cleaning up the unsourced BLP's within a year.
2. There is a lot of discussion surrounding whether or not old unsourced BLP's should be deleted. There seems to be a growing acceptance that if the community doesn't act, then this proposal may become unavoidable, but at present there is not a mandate to do so. Those who oppose it are pushing for a "clean up" option instead.
3. Based upon Scott Mac's compromise proposal on the talk page we will hold off discussion concerning codifying the deletion of Old Unsourced BLP's for 3 months. If reasonable progress is not achieved in cleaning up the the old unsourced BLP's during that 3 month time period, another RfC may be opened to revisit this item. Those people who are opposed to a systematic deletion of old BLP's are thus behooved to ensure that this action is not required.
4. For purposes of judging whether or not the community is taking this proposal seriously, J04n proposed the following metric. Currently, there are 42,621 articles in the Category:All unreferenced BLPs. The community commits to reducing this number to 30,000 by June 1, 2010 (3 month); 20,000 by September 1 (6 months); 10,000 by December 1 (9 months); and no unsourced BLP's tagged as unsourced BLPs for more than one month by March 1, 2011 (1 year.) (NOTE: these goals recognize that roughly 1000 unidentified OLD BLP articles may be identified or retagged monthly. If this number increases, then the targets may need to be adjusted keeping in mind the 1 year goal. While 1,000 may be less than the average over the past six months, we will be addressing NEW BLP's with the BLP-PROD above.) EDIT: I made two minor edits (in italics) per WSC's observation that BLP articles may be tagged as "unsourced" right now but not tagged as unsourced BLPs.
5. BLP-PROD may be used sparingly as an alternative to AFD, but only in cases where an effort has been made to source the article themself and it is fairly obvious that the article would fail at AFD in its current form. This does not mean that the community supports, at this point, wide spread use of BLP-PROD on OLD unsourced BLPs, but rather a recognition that atlernatives may be necessary to avoid flooding AfD.
6. If the community fails to make significant progress towards these goals, another RfC may be opened to consider other options keeping in mind the original goal of clearing the backlog by March 1, 2011.
7. After the clean up period is complete, newly identified "old" BLPs would be tagged with the BLP-PROD tag.

Again, you may not agree with each of the points above, but the question I have is "can you live with this compromise?"

Yes

Yes As nom I can accept this compromise and see if the community can live up to its obligations. While not part of the proposal, I think that we should hold "BLP clean up drives" during the last two weeks of each phase.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Switching to oppose. In my notes above, I said that I wanted to know if people felt that this was an adequate summary of how people felt and whether or not they could live with it. I broke the second proposal out from the first, because I thought we had reached a point which was acceptable to most regarding NEW BLPs and I think the support/oppose ratio above indicates I was right. I knew that the second proposal might be a different story. I was hoping that it would pass as it was basically a proposal to wait three months and see if we could clean up our mess without making any changes. While there are more supporters, I would be disigenuous if I kept my support here, when I do not feel that consensus supports this position right now. (That does not mean that I don't think this is a good compromise, but rather that I would be a hypocrit to keep my !vote here based upon the opposition below.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes Aymatth2 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree My concern is if future RfC's arise will the overall progress get "bogged" down again ? Mlpearc (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree per below. NW (Talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   I really don't like it. But it is a fair assessment of where we are at, and I don't think more is possible now. I, for one, am willing to refrain from speedy deletions on unsourced and see if the clear-up can work. But there are limits to a "wait and see" policy. Reluctantly, I'll go with this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think it's important that we "freeze" the unreferenced BLP categories of Jan 2010 and earlier, so in future when people change {{unreferenced}} tags to {{unreferencedBLP}}s they change the date to the current month and year. Otherwise we will continue to get a false impression of the amount of work going on in fixing BLPs. Whilst I would support a 12 month project to resolve the 42,000 articles currently identified as unreferenced BLPs, we don't know how many more old unreferenced BLPs will be found in that 12 months and retagged into the 42,000. So this is too open ended to my mind. ϢereSpielChequers 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Conditional support. My view is that there is no concensus to use BLP-PROD for old unreferenced BLPs. Accordingly, I'd like to see a moratorium on its use on old articles until the point that the "progress targets" described in point 4 are missed. Otherwise, I think this is something the community can live with. Jogurney (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support, but I must say that I am uneasy about point 5, but I will assume good faith in that the BLP-PROD will be used "only in cases where an effort has been made to source the article". BTW, kudos to Baloonman for attempting to move this along. J04n(talk page) 03:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
6. I don't especially like this, as I think the timeline is overly conservative, but I can live with it, and like Scott I am willing to hold off on mass deletions for now. Kevin (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Looks okay in general, but I don't think we need a BLP-PROD, as opposed to just PROD for the old BLPs that look hopeless or uncontroversial (point 5). It would make the wording for a BLP-PROD policy more complicated than it needs to be. Pcap ping 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
8. This is workable. Mr.Z-man 06:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Yes I agree with the statement regarding existing unsourced BLPs. Okip has a contest going on and perhaps people can help him expand it, ir hopefully get the foundation behind it on a much larger scale. The more BLPs are cleaned up and sourced, the better. Let's all do this wile we're fresh and excited. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Yes - I can just about live with that. What i can't live with is a lot more procrastination and debate, and I'm already doing what my non-admin tools permit to do to get rid/clean up/improve them. It's a drop in the ocean because I don't know how to address 500 articles an hour like some of you, but what I'm doing is working.--Kudpung (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Yes -- I think the numerical goals might be too ambitious, but other factors counter that. Maurreen (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Yes I'm in agreement with Doc above, and athough this isn't what I'd like to see exactly, it's better than nothing and appears to be something we can agree on. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Agree (that this is a good summary of points not yet decided). The specific deadlines vary, but most support or accept that there will be a deadline, and the longest ones proposed are a year. The final will be somewhere between 3 months and 1 year, likely 6 months to 1 year. Point 2 is an illusory question. If an article cannot be sourced it's unverifiable, so it is deletable under current policy. If it is sourceable but nobody has bothered to source it, that's not what we want - but the premise of the emerging consensus is that after some process, at some point if the BLP remains unsourced it gets deleted. I don't see why we need to hold off 3 months or start from scratch with a new BLP, we can just have a slow-acting proposal... but holding off before implementing does address Okip's objections currently at the bottom of the page that this could be fixed without any action. I'm confused about BLP-PROD - AfD is a slow, labor-intensive process. I think we should leave the exact deletion mechanism for both the backlog and new unsourced BLPs open for a later stage of the RfC. Let's agree to do it first, then we can deal with implementation. We wouldn't prod tens of thousands of articles at once with identical deadlines, but either PROD-BLP on a rolling schedule, or all at once with different due dates. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Yes — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Yes As long as its reasonable. Brambleclawx 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Yes Meta-consensus. Yay. Gigs (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Yes   pablo_hablo. 08:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Okay Jehochman ^Brrr 19:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Yes - we need to move in this direction, and yes, we need explicit metrics for our move in this direction. If DashBot gets us moving faster, that's great too. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Just about yes Not really what I wanted but as close as we're likely to get unless Okip's proposal gains a lot of support quickly. Moved to neutral as opposing editors have made a number convincing points. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

21. Yes. JamieS93^❤ 14:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Yes. Seems like a reasonable compromise position. —ShinyG (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Yes. Strongly agree with 1,2 and 4 point... and the compromise is compromise!Aeymon (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Yes. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Yes. Not quite unfuckwithable, but definitely livewithable. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Yes I can live with this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Not great, but I guess it'll have to do. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Suppose so. Seems to be somewhere in the middle. Quantpole (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Yes, appears to be a compromise --Magicus69 10:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Yes --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
31. Agree - Timeline is a bit conservative, but do-able which is the biggest obstacle. rkairis (rkairis) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Yes --Seems as sensible as it could beMajor Bloodnok (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Essentially yes with a big caveat regarding number 4. The clean up effort may happen unevenly across Wikipedia. While the community as a whole might slack and not live up to the promise to reduce the number of unreffed BLPs down to 30,000 (a 30% reduction in three months), a particular Wiki Project or editors may successfully source enough of these articles in its/their area of interest to go down from, say 129, to about 64 (a 50% reduction in a month). The fact that the community as a whole can't keep its promises shouldn't result in the WikiProject or topic area being "punished" by random PRODs. A bit of discretion and common sense is needed.radek (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Yes. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) switch to oppose -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

34. Yes - I think using the principles here - allows us concrete plans to make a compromise between those who want to try clearing the backlog independent of new rules first and those who want to make a new article test to slow down backlog growth. --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
35. Setting goals, and revisiting them down the line is one of the basics of project planning, something Wikipedia desperately needs. Nifboy (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Yes. We must move forward on this. Emmanuel Lasker: "a bad plan is better than no plan at all." Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Mhm. Works for me. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Tentative yes. This increases the motivation to identify old, untagged, unsourced BLPs, of which I'm sure there are thousands. That's a very positive thing, but will make it difficult to track actual progress. If the problem is 50% bigger than the backlog suggests, it stands to reason that working at the same rate it will take 50% longer to eradicate the problem. I'm supporting on the understanding that #4 deals with this concern. I think it's trying to, but it's vague. WFCforLife (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
39. agree - this is reasonable Voceditenore (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
40. Yes-ish. I tend toward thinking that this entire second section is just entertaining noise at this point, since depending upon how things go forward, what the secondary effects will be and what to do next are not really possible to predict. I'm not going to try to decide if my cat will be done with breakfast by 9 a.m. when I'm not sure when I'm getting up, myself, to feed him. I'll lean toward "yes" over "no" here, in the absence of a "neutral" section that I'm not inclined to create for myself. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
41. agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
42. agree a prudent and decent way to approach the problem without burdening the system. --Jayron32 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
43. agree--I can live with this compromise, principally because it seems to have some enforcement mechanism to mean what we say. Either source, or kill off the junky unsourced articles within a year. N2e (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
44. Agree This compromise seems reasonable to me. Anaxial (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
45. Agree. Looks good to me. This should help prod people into action - literally. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
46. Agree seems like a reasonable compromise. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
47. Agree a sound approach. MLauba (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
48. Yes. I do think that many in the community can agree to this, even if the consensus is not overwhelming. It is certainly "livable with". Wine Guy~Talk 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
49. Agree --Pupunwiki (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
50. Agree. As per SMcCandlish's comments. — SpikeToronto 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
51. Yes I can live with this compromise. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
52. Yes Acceptable. Shadowjams (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No

1. Strong no As unnecessary new bureaucracy. The community has already removed 10,000 unreferenced BLPs from the list, we are actively working to give editors more tools, such as User:DASHBot to clean up the mess even further. Okip 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
   • Then you should be supporting this! This proposal basically says that if the community can get its act together and clean up its mess, then we won't be adding any policies/guidelines related to old unsourced BLPs. This proposal is basically, a status quo one, but that acknowledges that we as a project have made a commitment to clean things up and if they don't get cleaned up, then we might have to revisit the notion of deleting old unsourced BLPs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
     • No, I should not be supporting this, "we will hold off discussion concerning codifying the deletion of Old Unsourced BLP's for 3 months." this simply gives the community a short window of time, before we inevitably start deleting editors good faith contributions. The underlying foundation of this idea is that unsourced BLPs are a problem, when the reality is, that only a very small portion are. Maybe I would accept your proposals if your proposal did not ignore other proposals. Okip 12:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
       • Actually, with the exception of BLP-PROD in the first section, which had the most support and has now been designed for NEW Unscourced BLP's, this proposal does take those into account. If we, as a community, can get our act together and clean things up, then nothing happens to OLD Unsourced BLPs. We don't write new policy, we don't start mass deletions, the only significant difference this proposal makes is that if we (the fixers) don't get our shit in gear, then they (the deleters) will have a stronger case down the road. The compromise is one that basically says, have the fixers prove us wrong. If you and others can clean up the articles, then we won't have to make any changes in this arena.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Disagree the consensus is definitely not the least clear about any particular time period. Including it here is just plain wrong and overspecific for this stage in the discussion. The consensus is also not clear about how to tag BLPs, and this overstates the degree of agreement very substantially. 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. I considered supporting, giving the exceptions, but these are too many and too basic. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Disagree of course. Come on now, this is coming down to a war of attrition: who is paying enough attention to wait through all the Cr*p here. Plus I disagree with the overall reading (Part I and II) of this RfC. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
   • This has to be resolved at some point. Are you suggesting that once a discussion passes some length+time threshold that it becomes null and void somehow? Mr.Z-man 18:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
4. I object per above. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
5. Disagree Mathmo ^Talk 11:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Somewhat Disagree Moved from support. I think this is an unhelpful distraction from higher risk areas of the pedia such as unidentified unreferenced BLPs, Attack pages in userspace and falsely sourced BLPs; But I was prepared to go along with this as the current fad providing it was a discrete measurable and achievable task. However as we can't get agreement to limit this to the 42,000 currently tagged as unreferenced BLPs, we don't yet know the true size of the project - thousands of articles tagged as unreferenced form 2009 and before will turn out to be BLPs and if they are going to be retagged without the date being updated then they will be added to the 42,000...... ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
   • That is why I explicitly stated the expectation that there be about 1,000 newly identified OLD BLP's per month. That is a little below the average number identified over the past 6 months, but if we are dealing with new unsourced BLPs via BLP-PROD, then that number is (hopefully) higher than reality. I included that comment explicitly to avoid the issue of somebody wanting to push a deletionist view point through by tagging 5K articles a month. If we see that kind of shennanigans, then it will enable those of us who want to avoid wholesale deletions to cry foul.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
     • Thanks I did notice that sentence. But I don't see how an estimate puts any limit on the number of articles retagged as old unreferenced BLPs per month. There are over a quarter of a million unreferenced articles out there, if more people were looking though that particular backlog or someone went through removing unreferenced twentieth century dates of death, and then changing them to unreferenced BLPs we could easily see the backlog grow. I could accept a compromise whereby if in March 2010 someone finds an article tagged as unreferenced since march 08 and they spot that the person could still be living they change it to unreferenced BLP March 2010 - but without that I will oppose on the basis that it is too likely to end in tears or last minute rushed rescues. ϢereSpielChequers 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
     • Interesting scenario. IMO, if an article was tagged with just a standard unsourced tag, not an unsourced BLP tag, *I* would think that when they changed it to unsourced BLP tag that they would have to change it to the current date. But I think you are 100% right in that the people who are supporting this from the "do not delete" camp want are doing so based upon the assumption that we are talking about the 42K currently identified items.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
       • • I made two minor changes, which I believe are completely in spirit of the original proposal that should address your concern. The original proposal contained language intentionally intended to convey that the project is committed to cleaning up those 42K articles, while recognizing that roughly 1K more may be added to the count on a monthly basis---whatever the source. So I tweaked the wording to cover those items that might be identified as mistagged.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
           • About User:WereSpielChequers' concern -- I wonder whether it's feasible to address this from the opposite perspective. That is, by "taking care of* x number of articles per period, in contrast to setting the level at the number of outstanding articles. But the number of articles taken care of might be too hard to determine. Maurreen (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
             • Thanks Balloonman for those changes and Maureen for the suggestion of measuring articles fixed rather than number of articles still in that category. I'm not convinced that either could work, except perhaps by the messy approach of adding another list or category for the current 42,000 and measuring how that changes. I have requested that the Bot which is doing this be amended to fix the date as well, but if you read User talk:Mr.Z-man#A tweak to your Bot plz, there is also a case to leave the date unaltered when fixing the tag. If it wasn't for the concentration on dealing with this particular maintenance category I would agree with leaving such dates unaltered, but I don't think the current proposal would work as is - at some point it will all end in tears with one side saying they've fixed far more than the promised 42,000 and the other side saying there are still x thousand in that category. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
               • Striking that part as I gather the bot will now be changed, and moving to mild disagreement. I don't think this proposal has consensus support, and I think it would be better to focus on one big change - moving new BLPs from verifiable to verified rather than have two changes at the same time. ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose per DGG, and WereSpellChecquers and mete-rfc issue below.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Disagree with timing; the "fair use" problem, which was likely to lead to lawsuits, the Project was given one year from the Foundation decision to develop a policy, and a further year to clean things up. Here, we don't even have a consensus or mandate that this is the problem to be resolved. If timing is established by a clear consensus, some of the other provisions seem acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

   The WMF board passed a resolution regarding BLP and there is a task force investigating "top down" solutions to BLP issues. Also, FWIW, OTRS currently gets about 6–7 BLP complaints for every one copyvio complaint. Mr.Z-man 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

   OK. Our target date should probably be within two years of the final report of the task force. One year from now is much too soon, without a consensus or mandate that this is even part of the problem. And how many of the BLP complaints amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or refer to properly sourced, or even nominally sourced, material? This task would, at most, pre-resolve complaints about material which isn't even nominally sourced. (I realize that OTRS probably doesn't maintain logs with adequate detail to determine whether any of the complaints would be resolved by this process.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

9. Disagree with the whole notion that such things can be legislated. I find myself broadly in agreement with DGG in this section of the proposal. Orderinchaos 00:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per DGG and Arthur Rubin. DES ^(talk) 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose If an article would clearly fail at AfD, put it up for AfD; if the AfD would be a snowball, say why - and put it up for CSD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose per DGG ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
13. No. Poulsen (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
14. No. More rules and arbitrary deletions will make building an encyclopedia harder.--Rumping (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
15. No. the PROD (proposal for deletion) time should be 1 month, to give more time to the editors to recognize the issue. old BLP's are probably not frequently visited by their editors. What's the rush? Other than that, the proposal seems reasonable. Setreset (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose. This is still the "terrorist" proposal "somebody do what we want or we will kill thousands of good innocent articles". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
17. No I do think this was a good compromise, but it is clear from the amount of opposition that this proposal has received that it does not have community support. I asked people if they could live with the proposal and I also was hoping that it might represent consensus as it was forming. As it does not, I have to reluctantly change my !vote to oppose... my !vote in this matter is, as I asked people above, based in part upon wether or not I see this proposal as having community support. This proposal does not. Back to the drawing boards Boys and girls. Oh yeah, some might say, but the vote was 2.5-1 in favor of the proposal, IMO when dealing with something this big and this important, a 2.5-1 majority isn't enough. I'd want at least a 3-1 or even 4-1 acceptance. And the opposition has strong enough rationale that you have to give it credence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
18. No -- The times being suggested are way too short so I oppose. Apparently the problem has existed a long time, so why stipulate 5 days or even less? A lot of editors may not visit "their" page for a month or more if it is old Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
20. No No No NO! Behind this proposal is the plan to delete articles blindly because of numbers, without regard for their value individually. This resolve is totally unacceptable as a response.Trackinfo (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    Absolutely not. This proposal is to take 3 months off, give the fixers a chance to put their money where their mouths are, clean up the project. If they don't get cleaned up, then and only then would we have to explore other options. This option is to shut down the discussion in a status quo position, but with a commitment to work on the problem knowing that failure to do so will probably result in revisiting the discussion---which will likely happen if nothing ever happens.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

21. Generally No per DGG. The details have not been worked out in any kind of consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Fuller answer: 1. There is no community committment "to cleaning up the unsourced BLP's within a year." Many users here view it as a moving target. 2. Based on some test cases at WP:AfD and (CAT:PROD), I think the consensus is that old unsourced BLP's should not be deleted. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). 3. Scott Mac's proposal for a 3 month time period is not necessarily and compromise, and might not be enough time. 4. J04n's proposal about metrics is a good suggestion, but there is nowhere near consensus yet on this. 5. I agree that "BLP-PROD may be used sparingly as an alternative to AFD, but only in cases where an effort has been made to source the article .... " 6. Opening a "another RfC ... to consider other options" is fair game. 7. I think there is clear consensus that "After the clean up period is complete, newly identified "old" BLPs would be tagged with the BLP-PROD tag." Whatever we decide is that time limit. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose I think the "pause" in the middle of this RFC ruined it, with a premature assertion of consensus where there was none. I don't think this discussion has demonstrated any consensus on (the threat of) deleting old, unreferenced BLPs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
23. As many above, I agree with the general ideas, but the timeframes are far too strict.
    (Regarding consensus in general, I was under the impression that we weren't meant to be adding to "oppose" sections in phase 1, hence I only commented in "support" sections. I'd guess this situation applies to many participants, and hopefully it has been taken somewhat into account.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose this part (part 2), but support the first part (part 1). I agree with everything except point 5. I believe all unsourced BLPs should be at BLP-PROD, not regular PROD. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose metric. The right way to "wait three months" to wait three months and then see where we are - by doing what had not been done: Seeing how many templated articles there are, and pulling up a sample of 100 or so, to see how many of them are new (i.e. created after this closes), how many of them are actually unsourced, how many of them are erroneous, and how many of the errors are serious. (In the process, we will improve 100 articles.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
26. No. Well technically yes: full credit to Balloonman and many others for calming the RfC down into something I could live with, but it would still be a step backwards. I know this isn't a vote, but I've chosen the No section so that those discussing the "most popular option" will count one against. Certes (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
27. No. Nom struck support, and per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose per DGG and Bearian. I wish that those editors gravely concerned about this problem would spend more time actually sourcing BLPs and spend less time debating - the problem would be solved much faster. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Mildly. I can live with this compromise in the end, but I think it is premature at this stage. Per DGG, Bearian, et al. Tim Song (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Disagree--Oneiros (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
31. Oppose per DGG. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
32. DisagreeNilotpal42 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
33. No as per discussions above. Parts sound acceptable as a compromise, but I don't like the threats made by some proponents to "hold off" mass deletions "for now". - Snarkibartfast (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please, not another RfC. If reasonable progress (that in itself is in the eye of the beholder; it ought to be defined) isn't made in three months, just prod an equivalent number of articles to get to our pre-defined quota for that month. The rest seems acceptable as a reasonable compromise for all parties. NW (Talk) 23:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Put that in there as it was part of Scott's original compromise solution. I did, however, add a proposal to allow use of BLP-PROD with the caveat that the person applying it has to check for sources first. Eg if a person working the queue stumbles upon an article they can't source, go ahead and prod... but this shouldn't be deemed a license for mass prods of unsourced blps.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As for reasonable progress, that's what bullet point 4 is about---defining what reasonable process is. I didn't want to leave it vague and in the eye of the beholder ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree with you in spirit, but I don't think we need another RfC. I don't understand why Alverstand's proposal didn't get more support since so many people seem to want to wait until the current progress levels off before doing forced deletions. I agree, lets wait. But we can decide now what to do when it stops dropping. Gigs (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

head→desk. The rest of it looks good to me. And Gigs, I think the answer to that this is the most reasonable compromise. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be waiting at all. But I recognize the rest of the community has different views that I do, and so I, like most others, are willing to compromise and accept what we wouldn't have accepted otherwise in the name of progress. NW (Talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How can this possibly be "the most reasonable compromise" when some of the most supported and popular proposals where never advocated? Okip 18:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the 163 users who supported Jehochman's original proposal for a BLP-PROD, which is significantly more support than the 16 users who supported Bearcat's contrary position that you cite as being one of the most supported/popular positions? Or the one that you are citing as having 19-7 support, but can only reach the 7 if you discount the nine people who failed to write the word "oppose" in their oppose rationale?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is very confusing to me. Are people agreeing that consensus isn't clear on these points, or are they agreeing to the points themselves? Gigs (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think people are agreeing that consensus isn't clear on these points but we should follow them anyway, as a compromise we can agree with. NW (Talk) 03:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, a sort of self-referential paradox. :) Well I'm on board with it anyway. Gigs (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As for the foundation forcing us, has anyone looked at other Wikipedias? A spot check of BLPs at the German one showed 5 out of 10 unsourced entirely, and 3 of the others sourced only to web sites that we would not consider adequate. At the French Wikipedia out of 10, 2 were unsourced completely, and 7 of them only to borderline websites. It seems to be the routine practice at deWP in particular that if the sourcing would be obvious, not to bother specifying it. Not a single one of the 20 in both Wikipedias had inline citations at all. Additionally, they accept a link to the equivalent of WorldCat listings of books by and about the person --the catalog of the German Nationalbibliothek as a sufficient source. [sample DNB entry]. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(Un)fortunately English wiki is the Flagship so for the better or worse a lot of editing quality "Steps Forward" are implemented here. --KrebMarkt 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the one important step to drastically improve BLP (and other) content, sighted revisions, was implemented by the deWP; we have been promised it for half a year now. I do not see why you assume that English-speakers are more rational than everyone else. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What's bitterly funny is we will likely double up effort dealing with unsourced BLPs and implementation of sighted revisions on BLPs at the same time. --KrebMarkt 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, the foundation doesn't even have an estimate of when they'll be able to estimate a timeline for deployment. If we're lucky, we'll have some form of FlaggedRevs by the end of the year. Mr.Z-man 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - short dated deadlines are the best idea, and deletion of other BLPs that are not referenced after the closing date. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Each point has plenty of discussion to sort it out. At this point in time consensus not not been achieved on these items, and even the introduction is not proven. Some of the ideas are good, but that does not mean that they are in a final form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

People who tag articles for deletion should help with sourcing. This issue is not addressed. Sole Soul (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Protecting the privacy of subjects of unwarranted BLPs is important, but not yet even mentioned here. I know an individual whose article is an amalgamation of un-notable information, some of which complicates their social life and career, even though it isn't an "attack". It was unsourced for years, and now it is poorly sourced, and still seems un-notable, and is mostly wrong. There are warnings all over about how the individual shouldn't edit their own article, and friends like me also have a potential conflict of interest. Even bringing it up for debate runs the risk of increasing the exposure, accusations of ulterior motives, causing a scene, etc. Yet there is no one else who is likely to properly clean it up, and resources are stretched thin. But the attitude expressed here is mostly about how bad it would be to delete non-"attack" information from wikipedia, and many folks who have invested a bit of time in finding a source tend to want to defend the article and prevent consensus for deletion. I think wikipedians need to wake up to the fact that wikipedia does not have a right to invade the privacy of non-famous people. Read up on journalistic ethics. E.g. Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. - from The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics: Journalism ethics and standards. Please consider this, and think about the various reactions the subject might have to an article, next time you deal with a biography and notability questions. There can be much harm in having un-notable, badly sourced and inaccurate articles here, and that is too common today. NealMcB (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose very notion of this meta-RFC

Best to leave it to one of those legendary uninvolved admins to gauge the consensus. Getting consensus on what there is consensus on (particularly with participation levels not much better than the actual RFC)...just seems plain backward. It seems to further the incorrect notion that these things are entirely vote-based. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (I withdraw support for my own statement on the strength of the rebuttals)

Support

• Strong support, as the history of this RFC shows, and which is shown again yesterday, when Balloonman declared that "consensus was almost reached" touting his proposal, and ignoring other editors proposals, be VERY wary of editors who claim consensus. Okip 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. My feeling is that people are responding to personal experiences with constructive ideas of their own manufacture. Having been a webmaster for large online knowledgebases? These subjective perceptions of problems and remedies that are not founded in statistics just promote confusion. People are trying to "get a feel" for the problem, when analysis, formal analysis is appropriate. We need statistical leverage here. My guess is that 80% of the unsourced bio articles are actually encyclopedic — they simply lack proper sourcing. Equally, nearly all of the Wikipedia articles that have the top daily readership have been compromised by marketing sources, so that they are flimsy reports of unencyclopedic romantic relationships, deep trivia about one-off performances and bewildering unexplained recitation of remixes. Having an article source or not is far from an acid test resolving unencyclopedic material. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• we seem to have lost the discussion on the other proposals from phase I The top 3 should have been discussed here as some ideas were pretty different to the summary of phase I. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Mathmo ^Talk 11:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support This whole thing is a mess with the introduction into the summary of previously not properly discussed points such as how we had better blow the house down ourselves before the big bad wolf does.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The issue selection from RFC I to this phase was faulty, even if the summary were accurate; even if consensus were obtained on the issues here, implementation should be deferred until the real issues from RFC I are discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, a clear case of "he who drafts the document rules the day", not a good way to handle this serious matter, IMO. DES ^(talk) 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Stop this whole proceeding and do not go back to the drawing board. Just forget it all like a bad dream. To understand how frivolous and mean spirited ALL of these proposals have at their root, please go to the =Thoroughly disappointed= section at the bottom. Read it fully, digest it. If that does not make you understand the stupidity of this process, you must already be suffering from the syndromes described in that section and seriously need to seek professional help.Trackinfo (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• I think in this case "Legendary" means "impossible to find". Not that I don't appreciate an exceptionally well thought out closure, but I don't mind closing this in the same way an ArbComm case is closed; by picking a plan that's good enough and rallying support behind it instead of getting eternally bogged down in the details. Nifboy (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I thoroughly agree with meta. I was gong to post more suggestions on the discussion but as it's completely lost it's track and has ended up chasing its many tails (endeminc most Wikipedia RfCs), yes: Best to leave it to one of those legendary uninvolved admins to gauge the consensus, especially as at a rough estimate, 90% of the comments have been made by about 5% of the contributors, and far to many of those were not about the topic title at all.--Kudpung (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You only really need an "uninvolved admin" if there is no clear consensus that has formed... which is not the case here. In an ideal world, consensus will be clear and we can all agree as to what the body has determined... if we can't agree, then consensus has not truly been met and we can try to resolve the outstanding issues. Plus, this way we avoid rulings from on high by people may have a stake in the game, but have been quiet. Finally, by getting everybody to agree to what has been agreed to, you avoid people crying foul or playing games down the road.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, the consensus that you espouse is as one sided as the administrator's false "consensus" who closed this RFC and espoused only one side. Okip 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman, if there's consensus that there's a consensus, then surely that means there's a consensus (2 actually). Given the huge amount of discussion, the number of articles involved, etc., its rather hard for someone to be both qualified to judge such a consensus and completely impartial. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've summed that up perfectly Mr.Z-man. And that's the whole problem (as I hinted above) with all Wikipedia debates: everything needs a consensus for a consensus for a consensus ad nauseam... --Kudpung (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Currently the above discussions are near-unanimous. If it stays the same, it wouldn't take a consensus to figure out the consensus there. Mr.Z-man 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about Bearcat's proposal? Which was not addressed by Balloonman? And which has 16-1 in support? Okip 16:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to that. Mr.Z-man 16:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that so far, this meta-RfC is doing a great job to both identify and further consensus. Why on earth would you want to shut the meta-RfC down, in light of that?--Father Goose (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naïve, but I still have a problem with this idea of a consensus. I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, and the closest I've seen "coming to a consensus" simply meant that seven editors said yes, two editors said no, and the two naysay editors were expected to "come around". It's still Majority rule and screw the minority, so let's not kid ourselves, okay?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase Forest Gump, consensus is as consensus does. If someone wants to summarize people's views, and people seem to sign on, that's helpful. I've looked at the attempted summary. It looks pretty good to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Pupunwiki (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Thanks to User:DASHBot the hard work of the community, in one short month, 10,000 unreferenced articles have been referenced or removed, and the community is actively removing more.

I propose that we support Bearcat's proposal, which actually had the most support in phase II, when Balloonman wrote "Proposal to Close This RfC". As Bearcat wrote, we don't "actually need to create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and regulation here."

Note, refactored slightly for clarity. I also fixed the link caused by #technical disruption Okip 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Okip 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   This is fine. If the reduction of the unreferenced BLPs backlog continues apace, then when we review matters in three months, there will be (as you say) no need to do any more. We don't need to choose between the "do nothing" and the "do something", I think we've a consensus that we do nothing in terms of deletion with the backlog for three months, and then see. If you are correct that DASHbot and other initiatives will show a continuing significant reduction in the backlog then I'll be happy to agree with you in opposing anything further - it will simply be unnecessary. I don't, however, see how this is an "alternative" to the above.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Thank you for your support. It is an alternative view that the existing framework can address unreferenced BLPs. I would be happy to support Balloonman proposal, if that proposal includes rudimentary WP:BEFORE requirements to help insure new users are not bitten. Okip 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   • Well, if the existing framework seems on track to eliminate the backlog within a reasonable period (I suggest 1 year) then that's fine. I'm probably more pessimistic than you are, but time will tell. There's really not a lot of point in arguing about it. If we look back in three months and see a really significant fall, then it will be obvious that enough is being done and the "stick" of threatened backlog deletions will have proven unnecessary. If not, we can discuss what alternatives are needed at that point. I'm happy to "wait and see" for three months wrt the backlog. As for biting new users, no one wants to do that. If new unreferenced BLPs are prodded, then the notice should be very nice. "Thanks for this, but we are looking for references for biographies - can you offer some? If you need help ask here". We should also encourage other users to help out with references as they are able and willing (remembering this is a volunteer project). If the article is unsourced at the end of the prod time, it gets deleted, but perhaps another nice message to the creator saying "sorry about that, if you'd like it restored all you need to do is have a reference available and ask [here], if you'd like help just ask". There's really no excuse for this to be "bitey".--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Support, clearly many editors are repelled by this muddling of one point after the next and are happy to help when given a reasonable chance to understand the issue without the drama and disruption. If there is strong support to make any changes then a specific effort to create a sticky prod - whatever that is - will likely still have strong support in a few months or whenever. I'm also unconvinced that rational ways of inviting people to solve the perceived backlog have been exhausted. Perhaps as part of this closing a concerted effort to point to the new efforts to address these concerns could be prominently placed and advertised so that those who aren't interested in the discussion(s) for whatever reasons may still be enticed to help the BLPs that need attention. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Support We already have a clear policy which forbids the making of rules for their own sake. We already have numerous ways of dealing with unsatisfactory articles including speedy deletion, proposed deletion, AFD , RFC and ordinary editing. We don't need another one. See also Hard cases make bad law and Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per Colonel Warden--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support because the problem is solving itself nicely. I think the point of the proposal has become moot. But if people wantt o support it that's a reasonable option also. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support per DGG. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Support because the problem is already resolving itself steadily with the existing editor-friendly approach. Certes (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support in that we should be focusing more time and effort to article improvement rather than even more bureacracy. We should be a collection of articles for which discuss improvements on their talk pages. We have various wikiprojects that concern various kinds of people already in place as well. The way to deal with unsourced BLPs is to just source them or if they are hoaxes that cannot be sourced, then those should be deleted with no controversy. Specific libelous edits can be oversighted from the edit history, while keeping the good edits. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Support With a review of progress in 3 month's time. --Plad2 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support per DGG. Assuming progress is made there is no real need to change things. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Support per all of above. Any new processes will take time to implement, understand and apply, whereas improving understanding and implementation of current guidelines will resolve this issue a lot faster, with less angst.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Support per my Phase I statement and DGG and Col.W. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
13. conditional support as long as an effort is made to get out the word about the BLP sourcing problem as outlined in the general-consensus points above, so that this momentum can continue. -Lyc. cooperi (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - How did this get lost in the shuffle? Above see all these proposals for deceptive ways to create new paths to ultimately delete articles. It is hard enough now for a conscientious person to try to protect our library of information here. If you want a path to destruction, use one that is already well worn and practiced. No new bureaucracy.Trackinfo (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Support Keep improving articles, rather than deleting them. Ntsimp (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Support If those involved with the push to get things happening had engaged with the relevant communities to begin with, we wouldn't have had a crisis to begin with. My own project, WikiProject Australia, has taken care of more than 2/3 of all formerly unsourced BLPs within its remit thanks to good faith efforts by those with access to toolserver and the like - if this was done more widely, then all that would be necessary is to enact rules about future articles and place some kind of notice on the editing screen so people can't say they weren't warned. Orderinchaos 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • • Erm, the whole purpose of this proposal is no new rules. You seem to be agreeing more with part 1 (recruit projects for cleanup, policy change for new articles). Mr.Z-man 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Better to enforce the rules we already have to deal with the problematic pages and simply leave the community to add sources to the rest. A new rule would do little for the problematic BLPs, since the current rules when enforced allow them to be deleted anyway, and would mostly result in the prodding and deletion of harmless pages (either that or it would go entirely unenforced, in which case there's really no point in having it). The community has shown that it is capable of fixing this problem on its own, and if we can clear the three-year-old backlog of current unsourced BLPs (which certainly looks possible), new ones shouldn't be a problem so long as we continue to pay attention to them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Support--When we do the 3-month review, we need to have the unreferenced article statistical analysis redone, otherwise I don't see the point.Jarhed (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Support although it looks too late to actually look at what ideas have had the most support at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Support TotientDragooned (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Agree, no new rules, no new policy. Existing rules and policy are sufficient and preferable as they place the burden on the community rather than on an individual author. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Support. This actually comes close to addressing the real problem, which is erroneous BLPs. There was no consensus - and there is not now - that a new BLP is needed; the support for this proposal shows that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Support. No new bureaucracy. --Kleinzach 05:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - it's not the general unsourced, uncontentious BLPs that is the problem, focus on the contentious BLPs under the current rules.  MPJ -DK  06:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - We've seen during this discussion that current mechanisms work. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - Getting bogged down with endless bureaucracy seems counter-productive --Panzer71 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Now can everyone just look at 10 articles and attempt to reference them? I've done my fair share, so I know it's not hard! Lugnuts (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Too much talk, not enough work. Dalliance (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Lugnuts has made the most respectable proposition thusfar. All of you stop crying and go do some work - in 24 hours there won't even be a problem anymore. Weakopedia (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Support most the BLP issues I've seen via OTRS have for referenced articles, for unreferenced maybe just an unwritten policy of CSD if issuea are raised. Gnangarra 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Dream Focus 12:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Support strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 12:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. What I've seen all along has been a lack of heed to WP:BLP and WP:N, rather than weaknesses in those policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Support - if things keep on moving in the right direction, and if this can be kept up in the long term, we don't need any new procedures put in place. If things were to stop moving in the right direction, then we can consider the more procedure-bound alternative proposal. -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
35. 'Support' - The current situation is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Support and move on. --Cyclopia^talk 14:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. This whole exercise has been a muddle and a fiasco. Let's end it now and go back to work. Rivertorch (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Support. This "new layer of bureaucracy" will become a barrier to entry for newcomers in the BLP project. Wikipedia is already facing a big problem of losing editors. We don't want to drive away interested people. _LDS (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
39. Support While I've waded in and tried to help channel the bureaucratic urges, I'd still be fine if there was no particular change in practice on the basis of this RfC. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
40. Support We already have evidence the non-problem is resolving itself. No solution is necessary to solve no problem so no action is needed, no further proposal or no discussion is needed. No reasonable person can even identify the problem, only pointing to hysteria and unidentified numbers largely created by BOT. Even if there is some minor problem hidden in this select pile of articles, we already have solutions to deal with those few problems, if only somebody would specifically identify what they are.Trackinfo (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
41. Support People proposing (threat of) deletion have not presented any evidence that unreferenced BLPs are actually a problem that requires deletion to solve. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. I think I can understand this position! Sounds like some headway has been made by bots against the worst offenders. I think we agree that totally unreferenced articles should not be allowed for very long. There must be some basis for the bio's existence, as for all articles. The original editor must provide something and provide it rather quickly. It need not be voluminous or comprehensive in the stub stage. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
43. Strong Support - For a start this isn't over by a long shot. Furthermore, plenty of alternative solutions are being looked at that haven't even been discussed in this RfC. Okip himself has recently closed an important discussion on the possibility of "Projectifying" certain unreferenced BLPs: User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs. We also need to give the new WikiProject a chance to develop and grow: Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. There are many, many other discussions that need to be brought to the attention of this "court", also. Those discussions are looking at practical ways to deal with uBLPs and that fact alone negates most of the oppose !votes below. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. Why rush into anything? Sapporod1965 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
45. Support More bureaucracy is likely to just create more problems. This a sound and sensible proposal that deserves to be given a chance. One caveat, however: The problem of how to prevent, or least reduce, newly created unsourced BLPs still needs to be addressed. But this is a good start.--JayJasper (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
46. Support per DGG and A Nobody -- too much meta-discussion on WP not enough article writing (and esp. rewriting of important but badly written articles both BLP and non). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Trilobitealive (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
48. Support Poulsen (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Milowent (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
50. Support --~TPW stands for ^{(trade passing words?)} or _{Transparent Proof of Writing} 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
51. Support The problem of delete-happy, power-seeking wannabe-bosses as outlined by Jorge Stolfi will always be there as long as humans edit. Good editors can blunt the idiocy of the bureaucrats by pointing out that tools are already in place. I'm grateful to folks like Trackinfo and Okip for efforts to improve this project instead of tearing it apart entry-by-entry. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
52. Support Let's move on. --Stormbay (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
53. Support -- Gaurav (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
54. Support per DGG and Okip's proposal. The problem was never unreferenced BLPs, it was always badly written, often incorrect and negative, BLPs. Ray^Talk 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
55. SupportE A (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
56. Support -- Trackinfo speaks for me, and I think I accept anything he writes on this topic. -- BRG (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
57. Support: we shouldn't use mindless policy as proxy for good sense. There is no substitute for human judgement. In fact, the response of a human to a situation is a reflection on that human's spirit. You can detect the good ones right away using this as the criterion. That automatically elevates the discussion away from robotic implementation of a blind policy. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
58. Support if it's truly "functionally equivalent" to "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.", as someone stated on talk page. Probably support anyway as apparently closest to my preference for sensible decision. I forgot to sign this earlier. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
59. Support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
60. Support emphatically. -- œ^™ 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - everybody, on average please source one BLP per day. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
62. Support - the less time spent discussing what could turn out to be nothing, the better - especially when that time could be spent sourcing BLP's. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
63. Support--Doug (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
64. Support--Oneiros (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Bri Tuohy (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
66. Support - the most reasonable proposal yet. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
67. Support See above: BLP's are just articles, and unsourced articles about, say, medications, wreak a lot more havoc.Complainer (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
68. Support Swarm^(Talk) 17:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
69. ""Support"" Richard LaBorde (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No, we need to include something to deal with new unsourced BLPs. Letting projects deal with the backlog is fine, but at some point, projects are going to get tired of constantly having to maintain their BLPs. Additionally, if we can't keep up this pace of sourcing for a year, there needs to be some sort of procedure other than "start everything over again." I would point out that several people (including myself) who supported Bearcat's proposal did not do so in exclusion of everything else. Mr.Z-man 19:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Bearcat's proposal while it may have the most support in round 2, doesn't hold a flame to the amount of support for Jehochman's proposal in round 1. While I do not like and opposed the BLP PROD proposal, we cannot take round 2 in isolation of round 1. Round 1 gave a clear mandate, by a much larger segment of the community that something along the lines of BLP Prod is desired.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   The whole idea behind round 1 being stopped, was that round 2 was supposed to clarify round 1. See all of the comments summarized there. Despite the closing administrator incorrectly declaring consensus, Bearcat's proposal received the most support of the community. Despite Bearcat's proposal receiving the most support of the community, the section your wrote Balloonman, #Proposal_to_Close_This_RfC for a second time incorrectly declared consensus, this time ignoring the most popular proposal. Okip 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

3. The current sourcing efforts are eventually going to peter out; that is just human nature. Bearcat's proposal is fine; it just doesn't go far enough. The Foundation and Jimbo have told us that the current situation is unacceptable. Leaving things at the status quo fails to deal with newly unsourced BLPs, fails to have a backup plan for dealing with old unsourced BLPs, fails to take into account the wider community consensus (those who only could follow this up through Round 1) and leaves things wide open for a fiat decision by Jimmy, the Foundation, or the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   So what you are saying is that this RFC is to establish consensus on how soon to implement the wishes of Jim Wales, which must be implemented no matter what. Which kinda makes this whole project a farce... Weakopedia (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

   I do want to stress here that the status quo isn't what I proposed — I proposed significant revisions to the existing rules which, while stopping short of a special process just for mass-murdering unsourced BLPs, are very much not the status quo. We don't currently have the right tools to deal with the problem effectively; I proposed creating them. And I also proposed that we open the possibility of actual deletion, which in the current process exists only as a toothless and hollow threat rather than an actual possibility, for articles that people still can't or won't deal with once the tools are in place. Anybody who can read my proposal and tell me with a straight face that it's a do-nothing status quo sort of statement is either adamantly refusing to listen to anything that isn't the solution they decided upon before this process even began, or needs to go back to Grade 3 and relearn how to read English properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Or we can just have an annual BLP Rfc Mlpearc (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The participation overall in this RfC series demonstrates clearly that something other than the pre-existing processes was neccesary. nb the sentence "Thanks to User:DASHBot, in one short month, 10,000 unreferenced articles have been referenced or removed, and the community is actively removing more." is flawed; yes people are actively working on this, but it is a huge leap of bad logic to say it's entirely "thanks to DASHBot."   pablo_hablo.20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   Good point, your right, I modified this slightly. It truly is, damned if I do, damned if I don't. Per WP:BEANS I won't go into more details. Okip 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose this would seem to ignore the consensus from Phase I, that a blp-prod is needed. It seems somewhat illogical for us to try and negate that now. Also, I'm not sure I agree that creating a new tag somehow adds bureaucracy. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   Bfigura, as the main proponent of closing Phase I, why are you now discounting the most popular opinion in phase II?

   Why didn't you speak up in protest after you sold the closing of phase I as a "summary detailing the major points that seem to have most of the support." and the closing administrator instead declared consensus?

   The support for Jerochman's proposal was steadily deteriorating as more editors became aware of this RFC, in addition, DGG's proposal had a 90%+ approval when the RFC was prematurely closed. Whether intended or not Bfigura, your proposal to stop phase I for phase II stopped broder consensus from forming, and stopped it at a place which was beneficial to Jerochman's proponents. My biggest mistake in this RFC was trusting that phase II would simply be a "summary detailing the major points that seem to have most of the support." The phase II closing was simply the latest way in which veteran editors have tried to push unpopular policy on the community. Okip 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

   Several issues. First, I do hope you're not trying to imply I had some sort of ulterior motive for starting Phase II (especially since you highly endorsed the idea when I ran it by you to see what you thought). Second, I didn't dispute Risker's close because it seemed to be an accurate read. Just because something didn't go the way I wanted it to doesn't mean the process is flawed. Third, I totally disagree that the "reinventing the wheel" proposal was the most popular. Just because it had a high S/O ratio at one point in time doesn't make it the most popular, especially given the low number of votes it got in total. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose While it is admirable that 10k BLPs have been cleaned up and sourced, this does not ensure we will deal with the issue going forward, which grows daily. As with all special projects, this one will fizzle out, or people will get bored and move on to other things, or DASHbot will break down, or someone will submit the whole thing to MfD and it will be closed down and archived (this has happened to a number of great and well-meaning projects). The end result of this RfC should be a permanent, ongoing solution to the problem of unsourced BLPs, not a temporary project to deal with the existing ones and then a "promise" to work on them going forward. We need policy and process, not promises and the status quo. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Opposed. I think that the position we are in now is ample evidence that something more is needed to ensure that the reduction in unsourced BLPs continues. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose both because we need something to deal with new unsourced BLPs, and (if the current BLP cleanup effort doesn't continue) to deal with the backlog. The old situation didn't work (and the idea that the majority of the current cleanup is due to the Dashbot notifications, necessary as they were, is laughable), and only the threat of actual deletions got most people going on this. Going back to the old situation is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Not strong enough. In support of previous proposals. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
11. I'll go even further and recommend that those editors who are opposing taking effective action about unsourced BLPs be banned. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not aware of anyone here to whom this would apply. The most inclusionist person I recognize who has commented, elaborates in his statement on the need to use speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    How about just ignored? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose. We need to try something new, the existing tools aren't working well enough. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose. It's clear WP's existing policies have failed BLPs. Something new is needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Bearcat's proposal has a lot of merit but I think it's clear that there is consensus that there will be a process for running through the entire backlog of unsourced BLPs, and another for dealing with new ones that get added. We should be narrowing our focus now to decide what that process will be, not hitting the reset button on the whole thing to say we should do nothing. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm getting really effing tired of people mischaracterizing my proposal as "do nothing" — it's very much a do-something proposal; it's just not the specific something that some people apparently predetermined as the only kind of something that would be accepted here. I said to put a hard deadline on the process beyond which an article can be deleted if it still hasn't been sourced up. I've actually initiated 40 or so prods in the past month on marginally notable BLPs (some of which I started in the first place) that couldn't be really well-sourced to current standards. The only substantive difference between my proposal and the more hardcore ones here is that I focused principally on the fact that the primary failing of the current process is the fact that we don't have the tools to deal with it effectively. I did not propose doing nothing, and would not endorse any proposal that constituted doing nothing — I pointed out some of the reasons why the current process isn't working, and proposed significant adjustments to it which, while not as dramatic as some people might like, are very much not "the status quo". Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Forgive me if I misread your proposal. Reading it again I guess I'm not exactly clear on what it entails. Specifically: it says no new policies or procedures, but then endorses a deadline (which would be a procedural change, as there is no deadline right now or even a policy basis for deleting a BLP solely for being unreferenced). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    I honestly don't view creating a complex new process exclusively for BLPs, one which is radically different from the way we handle any other unsourced article, and fixing some of the holes in the current process as being the same thing. I identified the two biggest flaws in the current process as being that (a) WikiProjects haven't had an easy way, other than trolling Category:All unreferenced BLPs one article at a time, to identify BLPs that fell within their purview — the existing tool that Coffee pointed out to me below certainly hasn't been promoted well enough to count as already fulfilling this purpose; and (b) because there's no actual deadline for dealing with BLPs, people are free to just ignore the problem on "somebody will get to this eventually" grounds. So my proposal was that first we create a new tool (or better publicize an existing one) to generate each Wikiproject's list of "unreferenced BLPs that belong or may belong to your project". Agree on a hard deadline — not so long that the situation seems trivial and unimportant, but not so short that the project doesn't have adequate time to deal with the fact that the initial list is going to be very long — beyond which articles that still haven't been dealt with will get deleted. Make sure that the wikiprojects know that the situation is important and it's not a project they can ignore anymore, then give them the time to work on the list. Then once the deadline has passed, anything that still hasn't been brought up to snuff actually gets prodded or speedied. It's not a matter of creating a new process and new rules, in my opinion, but of fixing some of the flaws in the process that got us to where we are now. And it's not a matter of saying that we can just leave everything as is, but a matter of giving people a fair and team-oriented chance to help separate the wheat from the chaff. And then we start deleting the chaff.

    Wow, thanks for the thoughtful explanation. I'll digest this when I've had a chance to sleep on it, and I'm not eating house-cured olives at a brewpub. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

    I do want the deletion process for BLPs liberalized; I do want to make it easier to get rid of articles that genuinely shouldn't be here. What I've been pointing out is that it needs to happen in tandem with improved tools to make it easier for editors to identify and salvage articles within their fields of expertise. A lot of good editors — including some of the people who've gotten branded as "stone throwers" here — genuinely do want to help solve the problem, but don't necessarily have the necessary tools to be able to do that effectively. And that's what's created a lot of the ill will in this discussion so far — too many people aren't seeing the fact that if we just liberalize the deletion process, and don't also examine our processes for identifying and rescuing articles at the same time, we're going to lose a lot of valid content that people do genuinely want to help repair. But instead, anybody who isn't in complete lockstep with the STICKYPROD EVERYTHING NOW!!! camp is getting branded as a stone thrower or a shooter or a ostrich with his head in the sand, even if we're genuinely interested in finding a workable solution that doesn't poison the well. I'm not saying "don't do anything at all" — I'm saying that we're not doing our job properly if we don't examine and revise both processes at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

15. Oppose - nope, sorry. Bearcat's proposal, while laudable, doesn't go nearly far enough. We clearly need a new approach to BLP policy - Alison ^❤ 03:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - We are evolving as a community, crafting new tools and procedures as they are needed. This is one of those necessary things. Nifboy (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Change is necessary, doing nothing is not an option here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involved "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

18. Oppose - This is a contentious issue, and we need clarity and guidelines for the community. LK (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Does not deal with the influx of new unsourced BLPs, which would begin to pile up as before. The threat of deletion works wonders when it comes to cleaning up articles not up to scratch. Remove the threat of deletion and sourcing efforts will eventually stall. MER-C 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "removing the threat of deletion"; it's about creating the tools that will enable people to deal with it effectively, while actually adding a hard deadline to the existing process so that deletion can actually happen where necessary. One of the flaws of the current process is that it can't. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

20. Oppose as a programme for dealing with unsourced BLP should be undertaken. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose - Two RFCs on a longstanding proven issue leading to a "Do Nothing" (non-)solution would show en.wiki has an ungovernability problem much more serious than the BLP one.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

22. oppose - The problems generated so far indicate that some guideline is needed. Setreset (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose, per Alison. This proposal isn't strong enough - clearing old unsourced BLPs isn't the end of the story. JamieS93^❤ 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal addressed that. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

24. Oppose and strongly feel I should have been notified. I voted support earlier for other proposals and did not know that there was a proposal to scupper those !votes. Doing nothing is not an acceptable option and we need a new approach to BLP policy. And as much as I want to AGF, I keep getting the feeling that this RFC is being jerked around far too much and whether or not that it is the intention, if you mess around with it enough and don't make sure editors who have participated know what is going on, that increases its changes of failure. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

25. Oppose This is not a reasonable solution. This amounts to hiding one's head in the sand and maintaining that BLPs are not a problem and do not need to be addressed by any systemic changes to Wikipedia. This is patently not true. We need a change in our plans to deal with ALL BLPs, and doing nothing is not an option. Good work on DASHbot for getting through 10,000 or so already; the fact that the problem is being fixed does not mean that we should claim that there isn't a problem. --Jayron32 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

26. Strong oppose. The whole point of this RfC is to change something, because the current system is not working. And, there was broad consensus in phase I that changing something is the way to go. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, the consensus here says that you are "doing nothing". And we cannot afford to live with the status quo, as it would unnecessarily risk BLPs to be deleted. – Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

    Well, firstly, almost twice as many people expressed support for my proposal as opposition, meaning that the current consensus is almost 2/3 the other way. And secondly, as I've said before, I could accept a consensus that my proposal doesn't go far enough — but I don't think any amount of consensus is allowed to magically redefine what I even said in the first place, especially when I've already taken the time to clarify my position here in light of the fact that several people misunderstood it. I didn't propose that we do nothing, and I don't believe that we should do nothing, and no amount of calling it a do-nothing solution is going to change the fact that I still didn't propose and still don't believe that we should do nothing. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

27. Oppose--change is needed. The status quo system is emphatically NOT working so it would be insane to continue on hoping that system would be the institution that would drive the change we need. N2e (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "the status quo". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

28. Oppose. We need a solution that is going to work long-term, not just a band-aid for the current problem. Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Solutions to the chronic problem of poorly sourced BLP need to be found now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose - There's no way we can act like this problem can be handled the old way. I, as Dougweller above, also believe that this RFC is getting jerked around too much, there was one damn closing proposal, we didn't need fifty more, you can just put your comment in the previous freaking post. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "the old way". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    Ok, that's just fucking annoying. Stop replying to every damn comment, especially when I could care less about your proposal. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    Swearing at someone whose proposal you disagreed with for trying to explain their position? Then admitting that you aren't interested in what they have to say anyway? I expected far better from a usually reliable administrator and have lost a lot of faith in you. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    He already had tried to "explain" his proposal, now he's simply badgering everyone who called his proposal for what it was. What good does it do to repeat something 20 times? I spoke my thoughts, if that makes you lose faith then it draws question as to what type of faith you're referring to. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not badgering people who called my proposal for what it was. I'm responding to people who called my proposal for what it wasn't...and still isn't. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    Apparently we have a different understanding of what the words "wasn't" and "isn't" are. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    I guess maybe we do. So just to clarify, I meant "was not" and "is not". HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm perfectly entitled to reply directly to any comment that characterizes my proposal as being something it isn't. I have no issue with people who express a well-reasoned disagreement about whether my proposal is enough to combat the problem — but I absolutely, unequivocally will not silently stand by and allow people to misrepresent it as a "do-nothing, just stay with the status quo" proposal when it quite clearly isn't. You're free to care or not care about my proposal, as you wish. But you're not free to deliberately misrepresent what my proposal entails, nor am I under any obligation to let you misrepresent it just because my responding to that misrepresentation annoys you. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    And I'm perfectly entitled to tell you that repeating the same thing over a dozen times in a row does nothing to solve any problem, it only fuels fires between the two sides of this argument. I already stated at your proposal that I didn't think it did enough, my views have not and will not change, as your view is way to close to the status quo. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    Actually creating a tool which will provide wikiprojects with a readily consultable list of the unsourced BLPs within their project area, where no such tool currently exists and the projects currently have no way to generate a list of the articles in question, is "way too close to the status quo"? Actually putting a hard deadline beyond which an article will be deleted if it still hasn't been sourced up even after that tool is in place, where no such deadline currently exists and articles are thus allowed to simmer on the back burner forever in the guise of eventualism, is "way too close to the status quo"? Actually putting in a zero-tolerance rule for new unsourced BLPs is "way too close to the status quo"? Actually making a concerted effort to actually apply existing rules such as "redirect musician of single-band notability to the band" is "way too close to the status quo"? If that's true then you're certainly not on the same Wikipedia I'm on. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    And again you make more baseless claims about your proposal. Your proposal didn't list anything other than one tool that you wanted that would "technically" help WikiProjects by making lists of unreferenced BLPs, and claimed that this didn't already exist, well it does, it's called WolterBot. Your proposal, definitely didn't lay down any specifics, especially in regards to a "hard deadline" for deletion (even though you claim it did). You never mentioned anything about a zero-tolerance policy on new unsourced BLPs. And applying existing policies is the status quo that you claim isn't what your proposing. It's been mine and my fellow administrators mission to try to enforce the existing policies, but that has been shot down time and time again, so I'm already quite aware that the continuation of our current policies will go nowhere. So apparently it's you who is living in la la land on Wikipedia, as you haven't proposed one thing that would be any different than what we already have done, are doing, or have already attempted. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    Baseless claims, my ass. I most certainly did propose a hard sourced-or-it-goes deadline; the fact that I left the specific length of deadline up for further discussion hardly means I didn't propose one at all. I most certainly did explicitly state that I favoured zero tolerance for new unsourced BLPs. And numerous existing policies that would help with the backlog — not solve it by themselves, I never said that, but help with it — are actually not being applied in a consistent and concerted way, and the tools that would enable wikiprojects to actually deal with this effectively actually do not exist, or aren't being adequately publicized. WolterBot? Great — if you're aware that it exists. Most users don't; I've certainly never seen it in actual use, and I get around the nooks and crannies of this place a lot more than most editors. And as almost everybody here (except, apparently, you) knows perfectly well, I'm one of the biggest hardasses for quality sources in Wikipedia's entire administrator's pool — so if you think that I'm in the "shooting down" camp, you're sadly mistaken. I'm actually willing to bet that I've prodded or speedied more unsourceable BLPs in the past week alone than you ever have. And my entire view on this is not that there shouldn't be a sledgehammer — it's that we shouldn't bring out the sledgehammer until after we make sure that the community has the tools and a reasonable amount of time to do what we're asking them to do, and then bring out the sledgehammer on whatever gets left behind. So kindly don't presume to tell me that you know what I think better than I do — because as near as I can tell, I'm the only one who's actually attempted to offer a solution that addresses the problem without simultaneously driving 75% of Wikipedia's volunteer base away in frustration. My whole point is that there needs to be a way to do what needs to be done here without alienating everyone in the process; the solution needs to be one that builds the community in a positive, community-oriented way. But apparently some people here would rather just use the stick and forget about the carrot. We need to be firm about sourcing, yes. But that doesn't mean we need to act like jerks in the process. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    *Sigh*... "give the project a reasonable amount of time to work on that list as a group — with the understanding that once that deadline has passed, the article will then become eligible for the existing prod process if it still hasn't been sourced up." is inferring something much less than a "hard deadline". Stop with the antics, this isn't a who's dick is bigger contest. The amount of work you have done might be commendable, but your proposal is not worthy of more than a second look over.

    Just because no one (or perhaps just yourself) knows about WolterBot doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, can't be used, or isn't being used; that illusion only exists in your imagination. Not only have I seen it used in several projects, it works extremely well. The main point you're missing with this whole argument, is that this problem has been around for over 8 years, and the community hasn't resolved it. Using your basic methods of having us continue to use the same policies that we've used for nearly a decade is ridiculous. Yes it's well understood that it might alienate some editors when we create more policies that make the BLP area stricter. But is it really a net negative to the project if we lose a few editors to the amount of credibility we would gain if we had new and much more strict policies regarding BLPs? No. In fact I'd be happy if the only thing we lost were a few people who wouldn't follow policies set out to ensure that we are actually a verifiable encyclopedia. It isn't acting like a jerk to ask people to put their opinions aside and follow some simple set out rules; in fact quite the opposite. Your proposal does not address half of the problems we are having with unsourced BLPs, or even BLPs in general, it only asks for a few small things on top of what we already have that wouldn't change crap. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't say that just asking people to follow the rules is "being a jerk". But creating a complex new process for mass stickyprodding all unsourced BLPs, without giving the interested editors sufficient notice and sufficient time to do something about it — keeping in mind that the original author, who as things currently stand is the only person who's actually been notified of the issue with any individual article, may not be here anymore — is "being a jerk". And that's for articles which have already been tagged; if there's no notification process in place, future articles may well disappear without anybody being informed or getting the chance to deal with it at all. And that's "being a jerk".

    It's all very well and nice to say that the tool exists; what you're missing is that the onus isn't on the wikiprojects to magically/psychically know that it exists if nobody has taken the time to ensure that each wikiproject has been specifically informed that it exists and how to use it. I participate in many wikiprojects and have never seen it used or even mentioned WRT this purpose — and I'm not known around here as an editor who has my head up my ass and doesn't know things that are common knowledge to everybody else. If I don't know about something on here, that says far more about the something than it does about me — because I'm quite well-known as one of the administrators who has a finger in just about everything.

    So the tool I asked for already exists? Great. Now somebody needs to take the time to make sure that all the wikiprojects know about it and how to use it — it's the bot team's job to advertise it properly, not the projects' job to just magically know about it. But you can't have a liberalized deletion process without an improved notification process as well — because articles that should be here, and are easily repairable, will slip through the cracks and get deleted if the current notification process isn't improved to match it. In the current process, the original author — who may or may not even be here anymore — is the only person who's guaranteed to get a notification, and that simply is not good enough.

    Again: I am in favour of, not opposed to, allowing deletion of unsourced BLPs; I'm a stickler for quality sources. But the current article maintenance and notification and repair processes, are not good enough to match a liberalized deletion process. You can't improve one without improving the other one at the same time — because if you do, then it becomes possible for an article to get deleted without any active editor who may be able to fix it ever knowing that the article's even under threat in the first place. And that would be "being a jerk about it". Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

31. Oppose Inertia is no longer an option. I don't believe for a second that the current rate will be maintained as soon as the RfC is over if this specific proposal is taken as the overall conclusion. The fact that it took the entire process to actually get those 10k articles referenced within a month is ample evidence enough that absent such exceptional circumstances, the problem isn't being addressed. MLauba (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

    My proposal in no way involves "doing nothing". Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

32. Oppose, for most of the reasons stated above, with apology to those who feel bullied by all cleanup efforts. Bearcat's proposal will in practice be hardly any different than doing nothing. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose per Alison and FloNight. - Josette (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose if the "toolspolicies and procedures we already have" have allowed a backlog of 40K+, then they arent the appropriate tools policies and procedure we need to address the problem. Active Banana (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    Which is why I proposed creating new tools. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    1. I was using "tools" more metaphorically. " a better notification tool," aint gonna solve the problem Active Banana (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't suggest that, taken in isolation, it would. I proposed several modifications to the current process, including an actual hard deadline beyond which BLPs that are still left unsourced do get deleted. That doesn't actually exist in the current process; instead, unsourced articles just linger because there's no real consequence in place for not bothering to do anything. What I'm concerned about is finding a solution that builds the community; unless we give people the tools to deal with the problem more effectively, mass instant stickyprodding will pretty much destroy it. Deleting an article about a topic that should be in an encyclopedia is every bit as harmful to the project as keeping an article about a topic that shouldn't be here — we need to balance those two imperatives and ensure that we don't err in either direction. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

35. Oppose as above. The BLP issue needs proper sorting and will not be swept under the rug. I suspect that a fair chunk of the cleared backlog amounts to lightweight referencing and de-tagging and that the drop in the BLPs categorized as unreferenced is misleading due to efforts targeting the categorization itself. Jack Merridew 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    Actually it is misleading because it is a net drop. As large numbers of unreferenced articles are still being identified the total dealt with is thousands greater. ϢereSpielChequers 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    I'm sure that many unsourced BLPs are still being discovered, and that more await discovery. I also believe that a great number have been de-tagged and uncategorized by editors intent on keeping them without much regard to the ethical concerns underlying the BLP policy. That said, I do believe a goodly number of unreferenced BLPs have been reasonably reviewed and edited by reasonable people. We allow most anyone to edit here and that opens us up to the full spectrum of human ethics, intelligence and competence. The BLP issue is the tip of the iceberg. We have inadequately referenced articles of all sorts and we need to raise the sourcing standard across the board. Some of the specific reasons for the BLP policy do not apply to everything, but the goal, for some, is a sourced and verifiable encyclopaedia that uses high quality sources, not shite dredged up from the millions of unreliable sources that are a mere Google search away. Jack Merridew 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    If anyone is detagging and uncategorising correct {{unreferencedBLP}} tags without improving the articles then that would be controversial. Can you give diffs? ϢereSpielChequers 22:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

    Jack is in part right here--the poorly referenced BLPs are more of a problem than the unreferenced--but this is not just the BLPs that might now be being over-quickly sourced, but the much greater number of poorly referenced pre-existing BLPs. Has Jack any plan to fix these? I know one way to help fix them both, which is to avoid interfering with the people who are actually trying to fix articles by pressuring them to work too fast. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

36. Oppose per Mr.Z-man, Balloonman, and Alison.... among others. Lara 21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Oppose per Z-man and Alison. And on a personal note, we clearly need a way to deal with new unreferenced BLPs. Allowing the problem to grow is not a solution, just creates more work and will lead to a great controversy when in future we find we have 250k articles and people are yelling OMG YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE 250K ARTICLES. Also, while I do not believe that having resonable requirements for articles on living people is a great impediment to the majority of editors, and in fact it can encourage some editors to participate, clearly it's far more annoying to have worked on an article for a long time, only to find it disappear or may disappear 2 years in the future, when if you'd been informed of the requirements at the time, you could either have fixed it when you were more familiar with the material or not spent so much time on it. In other words, informing people of the problem early on will often make things better rather then worse. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
38. Oppose. As per Mr. Z-Man, Alison, and Balloonman. — SpikeToronto 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
39. Oppose - We are here because the existing processes have allowed the creation of tens of thousands of totally unsourced BLPs. While this is not THE problem (nothing is) it is certainly A major problem and I think that past history has shown that the goalposts have to be moved to get continuing action. While the backlog has become smaller we need a solution for when the current enthusiasm wanes - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
40. Oppose Per Balloonman. MBisanz ^talk 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

I agree with the proposal in and of itself and some of the rationale.

But timing has made things tricky. That is (and not just with this), it's hard, if not impossible, to gauge the difference between how much support any given proposal has among people participating at any given time, and whether any proposal is most representative of the community.

Further, as a compromise, I suggest giving something to the other side. One possibility is to agree to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#Part 2: Where consensus isn't quite as clear but not Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people# Part 1: Items where consensus seems to be clear. In three months, we could re-evaluate the situation. Maurreen (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Newly created unsourced BLP issue isn't resolved by this proposal. Having editors fixing articles on one side while others editors create unsourced articles on the other side is suicide game. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have no preference, as long as something is done. Brambleclawx 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the distinction between the closing proposals concerns new BLPs. User:Balloonman's proposal would change relevant policy pages to make stronger statements about sourcing, at least on BLPs. His proposal also provides for sticky WP:PRODs. User:Okip's proposal does not include these two provisions. Maurreen (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a little out-of-process? A proposal to support another proposal? Why don't we just discuss this over at the section for Bearcat's proposal? I think there's a lot of good stuff Bearcat says, but it was an early proposal and people have added a number of good ideas since. I think we do need some additional resolve and procedural guidance instead of just saying we're going to continue as-is under existing policy, only enforce it this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, it looks like your question is addressed to me, but I don't understand why. My comments immediately above are only explanatory; they don't take a position. Maurreen (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was addressing Okip's proposal, which seems to be a proposal to accept Bearcat's proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a method of sending out notices to all wikiprojects talk pages. Too many editors do not pay attention to the noticeboards or policy discussions such as these. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just crossing out the bit about DASHbot (which has been highly effective, actually) and adding a bit about the community, Okip might want to refactor that statemnt altogther: Thanks to to the mass efforts by WikiProjects and individual editors, often with help from User:DASHBot and other bots and tools such as catscan, in one short month... As it stands, the statemnt seems to negate the impact of DASHbot! Just a thought... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If I get the essential gist of all of these posts, & based on my own impression of "Phase I", one group of editors was so concerned about existing articles being deleted before they could be fixed that they ignored the rest of the matter being discussed: what to do with new biographical articles on living people which lack sources. (This is the problem Balloonman's points 1 & 2 address.) My sense is that there is a general agreement that these articles need to be handled quickly -- speaking for myself, either they are sourced or deleted is one solution I could live with -- yet there is one school of thought which makes a very good point that new users who do this must be handled far more leniently than established editors because they don't know the rules. Maybe this summary, in all of its vagueness, should be substituted in that section. -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have said it several times, only to watch it get deleted, moved or hidden by other editors with an agenda. We already have standards and a system in place. We already have a self-appointed new article patrol. If an article cannot justify its notability, we have a public place where these items are discussed and analyzed: AfD. There, an unreferenced article WILL GET CHECKED and double-checked. If the references are not included in the article after that degree of scrutiny, it is only the laziness of the multitude of editors who have looked at the article. If it fails to prove its case (meaning the sources don't back it up), it will get deleted . . . along with useful articles that just don't muster enough support. You can start using it today to take care of this "problem" instead of creating a new secret bureaucracy to abuse more content.Trackinfo (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading what I wrote. I was not advocating any one position; instead, I was trying to explain the flaws in Ballonman's summary of what the consensus was. And when I wrote "these articles need to be handled quickly", I was not indicating any specific proposed or existing solution -- only that they "need to be handled quickly." (If I were to endorse any specific solution for new biographical articles on living people, I would more than likely endorse what you just wrote, Trackman. I'm still not convinced that we need more rules.) And lastly -- but most importantly -- I was also trying to point out that until this step exactly what to do with these new articles was overlooked by critics of these proposals who were understandably concerned that existing articles would be deleted, not fixed. In other words, no real consensus yet exists on that part of the issue. -- llywrch (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly disappointed

When the {{unreferenced}} tag was developed, straw poll was held *among the editors who had designed it* about where it should be placed. There were about 30 votes cast (out of a universe of perhaps 10,000 regular editors). These comprised 9 votes for for "top of article page", 10 votes for "bottom of article page", and 13 votes for "talk page". Needless to say, the obvious fourth alternative "nowhere" was not even in the ballot.

So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because nine editors wanted it there, twenty-three did *not* want it there, and 9,970 editors did not have a chance to give their opinion.

A similar story applies to the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. I found a straw poll in the Notability talk page about a dozen or so specific questions. The questions were all in jargon (like "PROD" in this RfC) which I was unable to decipher, so presumably only the people who had been involved in the writing of the guidelines voted. There were less than 200 votes, and some of the items in the ballot passed with a tight majority — that is, less than 1% of the pool of active editors. Unfortunately I could not determine whether the final declared "consensus" honored these votes, or — as in the case of the {{unreferenced}} tag — the minority opinion prevailedanyway.

As for this RfC, I see that 400 editors took part in phase I, 40 took part in phase II. 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?". Instead, it seems that this RfC will follow the same path as the other straw polls: the proposers stubbornly insist with their thesis, ignoring all data and arguments to the contrary, until all oposers get tired and leave; and then they will declare the "consensus" to be whatever they like.

In the summary to Phase 1 it was stated that all participants were concenred with the welfare of WIkipedia. I beg to differ. People who really care about Wikipedia should want to know, first, whether the unsourced BLPs are a real problem, and second, whether the proposed solution will do more good than harm. I don't see this worry among the proposers of the RfC. Indeed, it seems that the surest way to end a thread in this discussion is to post concrete numbers and examples. Instead of debating that data and what it means, the proposers merely shift to other threads.

It is clear to me that the original purpose of this RfC was not to find the best way to deal with the "problem" (or to find out whether the "problem" was real), but merely to obtain some legitimacy for what was a predetermined decision, namely that unsourced BLPs are to be deleted. If there is one thing that is clear from this discussion, is that unsourced BLPs are harmless and deleting them solely for being unsourced is extremely harmful.

The only explanation that I can find for the persistent wish to delete unsourced BLPs is psychological, namely the "lust for power" of editors who are tired of being just "workers" and want to be "bosses". In academia, were I work, this sort of thing happens all the time: people get tired of being just ordinary professors or researchers, and try to move to a position where, insted of working, they direct and control the work of other people.

How can one rise to be a "boss" in Wikipedia? Certainly not by editing contents: even if you edit 10,000 articles over several years and create a handful of "featured" ones, you will be just a "worker" like any of the other 10,000 regular editors. The same applies to any work (such as sourcing) that requires reading each article and thinking about its contents: no one can do that on more that 50-100 articles per day, the same top rate as for contents editing. Moreover, in that sort of work you often have to justify your edits to other "workers", and that puts you in the same "social level" as them.

A "boss" must do something that affects hundreds of thousands of articles, and does not require interacting with "workers" at their same level. It must be something definitive that an ordinary "worker" cannot stop or undo. It must be something that clearly put the "boss" on a higher level than the "workers".

That is the only explanation I can find for why we got the editorial tags at the top of articles. Robot-assisted tagging does not require thinking, so one can easily tag 1000 articles a day. The tagger is clearly "boss" because the tags are not "work", but "comands": every editorial tag says "I want this to be done, so some worker had better do it". A tagger is clearly above ordinary editors, because (by definition) the only way these can remove a tag is by complying with the wish of the tagger. Article tags have also the "advantage" that they violate the basic rule, "all editorial comments must go in the talk page": that is an advantage because (as in real life) one's social status is measured by the rules one can violate impunely.

And that is also the only explanation I can think for this RfC and the way it was carried out. The real "problem" of the unsourced BLPs is that the "bosses, after sticking hundreds of thousands of {{unreferenced}} tags, realized that they had been largely ignored — that is, the "workers" did not rush out to comply to their commands. That was doubly frustrating: not only it negated the authority of the "bosses", but made them look silly for wasting all that tagging work for nothing.

Enter then the idea of deleting all unsourced BLPs. Like tagging, deleting is something that can be done very quickly en masse, without having to read the articles. Like tagging, deletinon cannot be undone by ordinary editors. Even if each deletion has to be voted in the AfD, the place and timing of the vote ensures that voters will be mostly "bosses", and the final decision is made by a "boss": if one or two "workers" happen to see the AfD all in time and cast their vote, they can be just ignored.

That explains why no one here seems interested in statistics that prove that unsourced BLPs are harmless, or in the damage that deleting them might do. That explains why the proposers adamantly refuse to allow an editor other than the tagger to remove a tag without complying with its command. That is why they adamantly refuse to extend the AfD voting period beyond 7 days: for, if more "workers" get a chance to vote, they may out-vote the "bosses". After all, a Master of a thousand Slaves is not a Master at all if he lets even one Slave disobey his commands, or lets Slaves vote on wether to obey them.

Five years ago, Wikipedia could be defined as "three milion encyclopedia articles which anyone can edit". I am afraid that today it has become "a decadent social networking site with 10,000 members who have three million articles to play with". One just has to look at the pages in the "User talk:", "Wikipedia talk:", and "Template talk:" to realize that most Wikipedia decisions are being made by a small minority of "bosses" who seem to derive more plasure out of social interaction (and, in particular, the sense of power that comes from "bossing" over other members) than on making real substantial contributions to Wikipedia.

At the root of the problem is that Wikipedia's decision-making mechanism is thoroughly broken. As we saw here, and in countless other cases, any clique of ten editors can write a rule or standard, vote it among themselves, and declare it "consensus". Almost every guideline in Wikipedia:* was decided in this way. No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic" government; and it seems that Wikipedia cannot either.

All the best (if still possible to hope), --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly true, but as you say, that's how WP works and you can't change it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See User:Ikip/Sausage not surprised a bit myself what Jorge writes.

It can be fixed. But the first step is that Mr. Wales must step down. I don't think that will happen anytime soon, so defer to Mr. Fisher's conclusion. :/ Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, one issue with this sort of proposal (as also with the other one in vogue) is that a handful of editors quickly generate a lot of text. Since most of us have day jobs or school or families that need our attention, within the span of a few hours the sheer volume of words generated becomes unreadable and we cannot meaningfully participate in the process until it comes to a 'vote'. By then, of course, there is no way that we can comment on the meaningfulness of the assumed underlying problem (because that is rarely included in the community vote). I'm not sure if there is a work around for this sort of thing, perhaps early and well advertised straw polls with simple questions ("In your opinion unreferenced BLPs are a problem yes/no" sort of thing) that would help the proposal builders see whether they're touting solutions that are looking for problems. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful description (in its cogency) of Wikipedia from Jorge Stolfi. A tour-de-force. The virtual 'power' thing on WP is extraordinary. (You'd think we were participating in the French or Russian Revolution, not just in terms of the personal struggles involved and the inflated oratory, but also in the creation and mindless use of new jargon.) Many of our problems are due to inadequate processes. Parliaments, diets, congresses etc all have elaborate rules for preventing debates from getting out of hand. Wikipedia doesn't. This Rfc may be disappointing, but it's relative clean. There are worse. --Kleinzach 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Perhaps the creation of a democratically-elected Wikipedia "legislature" that makes rules and policies would help. Sapporod1965 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

beware, this is the path of Wikipedia:Esperanza which will never be allowed to fly. maybe we will get german wikipedia adult supervision (shrug)

strong support jorge, i see little reason to get excited about fixing the UBLP taggers "problem". the quality of wiki is not to be measured by pseudo numeric measures. i for one will be ignoring the dysfunctional attempts to manage-by-numbers wiki editing, and go back to my own agenda of article creation of snowball notable articles, which to my mind, is a far greater problem: i.e. how many red link articles do not exist for which there is ample evidence. i can toil at this task mostly disregarded by these non-managers, with only the occasional sharp duel at AfD, oh and occasionally recreating Speedy and Proded articles, which i note on the talk page. Pohick2 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

supportI've thought about doing the same, just ignoring this manufactured emergency and devoting my attention to the areas where I know I can help the project: in my case, translating as well as article writing and improvement in the areas where I have expertise and research skills. The problem is, meanwhile articles that people want and need to have available and that I am not well equipped to write and reference, will get deleted. After all, it is a collaborative project - none of us has expertise in everything, or time to write and improve all the needed articles! The harm does affect the entire project, and us. It creates a genuine quandary, to my way of thinking, in terms of where I devote my time. (As well as feeling discouraged and disrespected. I haven't done much of importance since this blew up - I keep thinking, why bother?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm way past the point of caring about the the reputational harm to the total project. the harm does not affect me. if i can carve out a subset of well written articles that rise to the top of a google search, that act as a nexus for study of the references, then i will have done my job. if the wiki is less than it could be, then that is the fault of the failed leaders, and community that has failed to act in responsible ways. but they can't destroy the project in a Götterdämmerung: There'll Always Be an England. Pohick2 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT - EVERYBODY PLEASE READ JORGE STOFI's ENTRY=THOROUGHLY DISAPPOINTED= IN ITS ENTIRETY. I held my comments so this could take a prominent position at the bottom of the page for as long as possible. This is the most insightful and accurate summation for the real problem anybody has produced. Better than I could have hoped to produce. It is must reading for all. This gets my complete endorsement.Trackinfo (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. Yes, indeed. Thoroughly endorsed. --Kleinzach 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. - This is a major debate. It's not about somethng like should the <ref></ref> tage come berfore or after the full stop (period). It echoes the tones of my dozen or so short contribs to this RfC, and the Policy notes on my own user page. EVERYBODY PLEASE AT LEAST READ JORGE STOFI's ENTRY - the rest of this RfC has clouded the issues and got (gotten) out of control - some of us can even be seen to have contradicted ourselves because there weren't any other offered options of choice in the many sub consensuses of consensuses.--Kudpung (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT. Finally someone speaking my language. Zenexp (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • ...you realize, of course, that you three just voted in favor of a comment against voting. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • I voted in favor of no further action on this RfC. Stop the rest of this stupidity. All of these other proposals make improper assumptions clouding reality to achieve a goal.. Voting, and subsequent policy making based on these improper assumptions should be thoroughly rejected.Trackinfo (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The observation that much of WP organization and pioneering and trend-setting (with both positive and negative outcomes in various cases, and at all levels) are carried out by people who act as "bosses" and do little constructive work of other sorts is true, but is simply a mirror of every other process in the world. This is a volunteer project, and there's an unbelievable amount of work to be done. And people will just damned well do it, because this is a wiki, and it even has explicit policies and near-policies supporting initiative over caution. Some people have skills better suited to organizing that work, others doing the bulk of it, and still others polishing the details. Furthermore, when it comes to leading, early leaders are often extremely opinionated and stubborn (otherwise the order they are trying to form would melt back into the chaos), later leaders (who often have to supplant the original visionaries) are stabilizing but excessively promotional/evangelical (demanding that everyone agree with the project/process in question, rather than with their personal vision, which may not even be in evidence), while mature-phase leadership is all about "don't rock the boat" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There are entire books about this. Yes, there will always be some jackasses that insert themselves as leaders when in fact they have no leadership skills at all and only want the power to push their own agendas. This is true on the stage of world politics, and the schoolyard, and Wikipedia administration, and even the control and direction of individual WP templates only a dozen people give a damn about. Human nature. Deal. PS: I say this as someone who has quite intensely locked horns with some of the specific "bosses" that Jorge Stofi complains of, since 2006. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi's point (amongst others) is that the situation is getting steadily worse. "Five years ago, Wikipedia could be defined as "three milion encyclopedia articles which anyone can edit". I am afraid that today it has become "a decadent social networking site with 10,000 members who have three million articles to play with". " I agree with this. --Kleinzach 08:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, five years ago, Wikipedia didn't even have one million articles, let alone three... Still, a warm applause for our 10,000 editors who find the time, inbetween their social networking, to create 1200 articles a day. Fram (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So in 2005 a majority wanted it on the article, not on the talk page, and of those, the idea of putting it at the top or the bottom is quite evenly split. In many articles, it is actually placed at the bottom. And e.g. David Gerrard, who supported "bottom", later supported "top" as well ([[Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 7#Placement). From e.g. Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 5#Placement, it is clear that the original outcome of the RfC was respected in the template documentation (i.e. you are free to place it at top, bottom, or talk), but that actual use (i.e. not by these 30 people that voted, but by the 10,000 that use it) made it clear that the top of the article page was and is the usual location. Policy is descriptive, not restrictive, and in this case, it is obvious that an old RfC has been replaced with what actually happens in the field, so to speak. That is the reason that the current doc wording of "put it at the top" only was implemented in 2008, not after the RfC.[2] Your statement at the beginning that "So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because nine editors wanted it there, twenty-three did *not* want it there, and 9,970 editors did not have a chance to give their opinion." is thus clearly incorrect. More correct would be:

"So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because the vast majority of editors actually using the template put it there, despite a relatively small RfC and the template doc not giving any preference." Fram (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with your reasoning - the initial voters established a precedent amongst themselves which was then pushed on the community until it (mostly) fell into line. New editors and editors who were not involved in the original 'unreferenced' discussion generally followed the guidelines as they saw them being implemented. Policy starts small, amongst but a few editors, who use the policy to influence how others see policy. Regardless of the reality of most of Wikipedians it is the small (in this case very small) group of editors who have formed a consensus amongst themselves that have formed policy, most others simply following what they see implemented, thinking it to be a firmer policy than it in reality is. Weakopedia (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't read what I wrote. The 2005 RfC determined that there was no preference for either placement (top, bottom or talk). This was reflected in the template documentation. But by 2008, it became clear to everyone involved that in reality, the template was nearly always placed at the top of the page. Only then was the text on the template page changed to reflect actual practice instead of the initial outcome of the limited participation RfC. People in general don't follow whatever is decided on such RfCs and whatever is written on template page documentation. In a similar vein, the template should supposedly not be used on stub pages, but in reality thousands upon thousands of stubs are tagged as unreferenced. In general, people don't follow those guidelines, the guidelines eventually follow the people. Fram (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try and assume good faith in your contributions. I did read your comment and, as stated, I disagree with it. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, then you ignore facts to be able to reiterate incorrect comments. "the initial voters established a precedent amongst themselves which was then pushed on the community until it (mostly) fell into line. " is definitely, clearly, not what happened, even though it is the basis for the long post by the original poster and all the supports. It's hard to pay a lot of attention to people who distort reality in such a way and base their complaints on that distortion. Fram (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are unwilling or unable to show good faith then you should act on your instincts not to pay attention to this section and remove yourself from it. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and then get people claiming consensus when their proposal (whatever this intends to propose) gets little support but even less opposition. Anyway, good faith is something lost once evidence to the contrary appears. Editor claims A, other editor refutes A with arguments, and a third editor replies that he still believes A, without any effort to get actual arguments, facts, evidence... Why should any further good faith be extended to such editors? You disagree with reality, fine, but then don't complain when your comments carry little weight. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who adds such tags, though in my defence it is only a small part of what I do here. I use wp:friendly to add the tags, as I suspect do the editors who do much of this tagging. Change Friendly to tag at the end of the article and that's where my tags will go. ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Whilst I find Jorge Stolfi's comments compelling, I am inclined nonetheless to ask, 'So what?' (Some) people will always seek to exploit systems (real or virtual) for no other reason than to assert themselves. For those not so inclined, the issues are going to be how much such activities impinge on their own ideals, and if that impact is more than tolerable, what they can realistically do about it. Whilst in principle I don't warm to the idea of deleting unsourced BLP articles, in practice, while rehabilitating a number of them under the WP:Composers project, few of them would have made me lose any sleep. Of course one should always remember Heinrich Heine's prophecy, 'when they start burning books they end up burning people'....... which is reflected in the personal animosity that we sometimes see in edit wars....I am afraid that those of us who indulge in WP as a displacement activity will always be at a disadvantage to those who use it as an alternative to Second Life.--Smerus (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jorges opinion which is the most credible view of Wikipedia I have yet to read. Weakopedia (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support in substance Jorge's analysis of how Wikipedia operates. This is a standard phenomenon for votes with a low turnout. If it's to be corrected, assuming there isn't a massive culture change, somebody needs enforcement powers, such as the elected legislature suggested above by Sapporod. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: This opinion which has less !votes WILL be ignored when someone closes this RFC. So if you want your voice to be HEARD, make SURE to also comment on the above positions also (yes/no; support/oppose).

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

Okip 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the most ludicrously confusing issues is that this entire discussion is split between this page, and its and its talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jorge, trust me there was no intention to hide this RfC. In fact, there was a strong push to have this phase of the RfC on the same page as the original to ensure that people who had watchlisted phase 1 would know that it was ongoing. It was my understanding that this is why this page was here, but looking at the history, it appears as if Phase 1 was moved and Phase 2 was moved to have the same name as phase 1---this would have broken the link as people who had watchlisted phase 1 would now be watching the archive not the new RfC. I can pretty much guarantee that this was not intentional as the person who made the moves was the one most adamant about keeping it on the same page so that people who had watchlisted phase 1 would know that phase 2 had begun. It was a mistake on his part and on our part for assuming that the the move was done correctly. For that we do share some of the blame, but not all of it. You share some as well. If this was as important as you make out, then you should have revisited the page to find out what was going on. Had you done so, you would have been aware. Similarly, you bear responsiblity in not keeping yourself informed that phase 2 was intended to being within day of finished phase 1---that was always the intent and was evident from phase 1's talk page as well as the closing statements.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's how it works? I've found that if an article is moved and then moved back both titles are then on my watchlist. Peter jackson (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I had assumed that what you said is how it would work, but it was the only possibility that would explain why Jorge et al didn't see the ongoing discussions. In this case, it wasn't moved back. We have articles A and B. Article A is moved to C, article C is now watch listed. Article B is now moved to where Article A used to, but it is a new article not the original one in A's place. If the link is recreated with the new article, then Jorge has no defense for failing to notice that the RfC was ongoing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is only a handful of people who are able to follow the discussion here, those are the ones who are leading these proposals, deleting/moving/hiding comments and then presenting their side of the plan in prominent positions to get the sheep to vote for them. This entire discussion is a fraud to achieve a goal and must be discarded.Trackinfo (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I wish that had been just a tl;dr rant, but unfortunately there's an awful lot of truth in there. Congratulations for daring to give the emperor an honest assessment of his new clothes. As I moaned above, there's a lack of clarity as to whether we're voting for what we want, or for what forced change we'll reluctantly accept. Certes (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support As a once-zealous Wiki-contributor who has slowed down drastically due to Deletionists (only a little of ~my~ content, but a LOT of others' content ---redlinked many articles I would have wanted to have read) I'm pleased to encounter Jorge Stolfi's section above and below. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam

Strong endorsement - The facts set out above need to be given full consideration by all of WP not just by the editors at this RfC. In particular:

As we saw here, and in countless other cases, any clique of ten editors can write a rule or standard, vote it among themselves, and declare it "consensus". Almost every guideline in Wikipedia:* was decided in this way. No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic" government; and it seems that Wikipedia cannot either.

Things can change. However, Jimbo Wales is not to blame for the way the system has been been skewed by certain admins and their pet editors. JW is simply another editor who happens also to have co-invented the concept of Wikipedia. I note he has avoided these discussion altogether and indeed avoids all discussion on proceedure, as far as I can tell, beyond the odd personal letter posted at the top of special pages etc every now and then. People can ignore those if they chose.

The main problem, as far as I can tell, is that certain admins simply block-vote alongside their handservant-editors in certain crucial discussions. This is, effectively, vote-stacking. The problem is not limited to these processes, either. WikiProjects vote on certain issues in their own talkpages, make "style guidelines", fail to seek consensus for these form the rest of WP, then force these "guidelines" on other non-project editors. When those other editors complain about their work being deleted/reverted etc, the Wikiproject members simply point them to their dogmatic "guidelines" and say "we decided this already, stop making us have to explain a zillion times and read what we are telling you to do". (See this ongoing RfC, for example.) The problem, then, is not merely endemic to certain areas of WP it is an epidemic effecting the whole of WP. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment mindless pursuit of quantity while ignoring quality leads to very bad outcomes Active Banana (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The dl;dr version: Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Editorial_process - WP:AGF → Wikipedia's governance is crap ∴ Wikipedia is doomed. Right. The idea that policy making here is anything less than a sausage factory is not new.

But on topic, considering that the dominant opinions to come out of Phase I were that the BLP problem needed to be addressed, but not at the cost of mass deletions, it's a bit odd to then say that since this RfC had lower participation, we should start it over, or scrap it an do nothing. I don't really see how starting another RfC on the same topic is likely to achieve higher participation. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi wrote No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic". I have to respectfully remark that Jorge overestimates the scope of democracy in countries. If talking numbers, the %% of "real-life" lawmakers in country populations is way far less than in wikipedia (if you forget about these millions of dormant/abandoned/blocked/stupid/anon accounts). Also let's face it: people have different interests and skills. And stratification of work and responsibilities is just as natural as in real life. Some people are good in leadership, others in execution. While wikipedia is not democracy, there are still some analogies, and the proper solution is not to shoo people from what you call "bossing" other call "policing" and other namecalling, but to put these different skills to good use and under control against abuse. And if a cabal of 9 policymakers succeeded to push some rule, and some 3,000+ active editors did not resist, then kudos for these 9: it is quite probable they did something good or at least acceptable. Twri (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse Jorge Stolfi's view of the problems with this RfC and WP in general. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed as well. Disappointed that the community has, yet again, showed just how resistant it is to even incremental change. Some of the people opposing this proposal are complaining that the proponents of it are bad for Wikipedia by trying to take power away from the 160,000 active users not involved in the discussion or "wearing down the community" by taking so long to come up with a compromise or daring to come up with a compromise that doesn't include every single viewpoint. For all the talk about viewpoints, they're insensitive to any viewpoint other than their own, and anyone who doesn't act in the way they believe is best is obviously acting in bad faith. When the first part of the RFC started, it really looked like the community was about to prove me wrong and come up with some major change spontaneously. Now it looks like at most, we'll get a BLP-PROD process for new BLPs (though there are efforts underway to create more places for that to be rejected as well), with no timeline for taking care of the backlog. Oh well, back to the status quo I guess. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If imposing new rules onto wikipedia is your goal, as it obviously is, I sincerely hope you fail miserably. The freedom wikipedia offers to the world; to allow people to upload their knowledge is important. Its a relatively unique opportunity for more knowledge to be compiled into one, relatively easy place to search for it. But the people who have taken over administering this site are progressively ruining that wonderful opportunity even faster than the few vandals, the fanatics advocating a point of view or those who are deliberately trying to manipulate the information for personal gain. Those are the people we need to be watching out for. So I take this seriously, just like the information contained in articles in my watchlist. I am watching over the decay in people's ability to post useful information. So put my face on your resistance to imposing more rules and secret bureaucracies that decide what the world can know.Trackinfo (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to change Wikipedia for the better, but thanks for illustrating my point about viewpoints. I want people to be able to add useful information too, I also want to make sure that information is verifiable and isn't presented as truth if it isn't, especially when it has the potential to harm someone in real life if it isn't. Wikipedia is no longer a resource mainly for its own editors – it hasn't been in a long time – but in some areas (in particular, ensuring information is verifiable), we're still acting like it is and doing a disservice to our readers and the general public in the process. Mr.Z-man 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What these proposals (I'm trying not to make this a personal attack) do is institute a "conform or die" attitude against these articles. These articles might not have references attached, but they are overwhelmingly informative and ACCURATE. Maybe you haven't looked beyond the numbers. I've opened and read thousands of these articles, I have personally found and added sources to hundreds of them. NOT ONE I have tried to source has proven inaccurate. I have, deliberately, stayed away from subjects I am not knowledgeable in, but I have no reason to believe any of these articles are any less truthful--I just don't happen to know where to source a Lithuanian legal scholar, for example. I have barely seen anything that would seem libelous, though I would guess the BLP about a person, whose only claim to notoriety was his conviction for murder might be libelous if untrue. The point being, the number of contentious or libelous articles--the stuff we should be concerned about--are microscopic. Being unreferenced by itself is not a crime. An editor, not knowing what to do to reference an article, to remove a tag or even how to lay out a basic article, by itself, is not a crime. Rules to prevent good information from joining the database are much more dangerous. And policies that BLINDLY remove good information from the database out of fear or laziness are criminal. That is what is being proposed. That is why I am so firmly in opposition.Trackinfo (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If the information is good, the creator should have no problem adding a source for it. I still maintain that we need to get away from the 2001–2003 mentality of "if you know it, just drop it in and we'll fix it eventually" mentality and realize that A) At the current rate, eventually may mean never and B) We are a top 10 website that millions of people come to for information; editors are important, but readers outnumber editors probably 100:1. OTRS gets ~7 complaints per day regarding BLPs (more than 2000 per year) and the majority of the complaints are valid. The issue is hardly "microscopic." Just a few days ago I had to oversight a revision from an article where it claimed a person was having an affair with a coworker. In the month that it was in the article, it was probably seen by ~200 people and may have been in Google results as well. While the actual size of the issue may be fairly small, the effects that it can have on the person are huge. People seem to look at it as "Well, there's only a few libelous articles, so we don't need to concern ourselves too much." There should be zero libelous articles; an encyclopedia should not harm people. The reasons we haven't been sued (successfully) yet seem to be mostly luck, quick responses by the OTRS volunteers, and the willingness of the foundation to give into demands rather than fight a costly legal battle. Referencing an article should not be hard for the person writing it. We're not asking people to give properly formatted inline references, just sources. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"There should be zero libelous articles". What about libelous information in sourced BLPs? None of these proposals do anything to improve articles with one or more reliable sources. My "Ultimatum" note on the talk page illustrates this-- you can't seriously push the "all-or-nothing" argument, then decide to apply it only haphazardly. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC) PS I don't mean to advertise my talk comment here; it just seems conveniently relevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By the logic of the proponents of this discussion (the ones who keep trying to tell us what to think), we might as well delete all of wikipedia for fear that something might be libelous. Someone with malicious intent could easily put in a fraudulent reference and let their attack slip under this radar. Meanwhile there are psychotics who would prefer to delete 40+K (down from 50+K) of articles just because they don't have a source and they are afraid of what those articles say. Heaven forbid they should try to READ the articles and identify the (few) problem articles. Whether it is paranoia or a thirst for ultimate power, its a crazy over-reaction. Deleting that much material would be a good way to piss off a large percentage of your editors . . . and put us well on the way to becoming a second tier ~>#2,000 website or maybe in a few years fall off alexa all together. Remember there are plenty of wannabes out there who would love to take this spot.Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@M.Nelson: "None of these proposals do anything to improve articles with one or more reliable sources." - I didn't argue that it did. We need to start somewhere though. Are you disagreeing with the statement that we shouldn't have any libelous articles? Previously we were basically doing nothing at all. Reviewing 10% of BLPs for accuracy is far better than 0%, which is what we were doing before. This brings me back to my initial comment here about the community being opposed to even incremental change.

@Trackinfo: As I noted, we probably have 100x as many readers as editors. Most readers couldn't give a damn what happens "behind the scenes," they just want quality content. It is about neither paranoia nor power, but about protecting the subjects of our articles from harm, and providing a quality service to readers, something that we've been failing at for years because of our "quantity over quality" approach that stopped making sense about 1.5 million articles ago. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - this whole thing is a mess, one of the reason people have avoided even getting involved. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support much of what has been written. And my two cents, for what they're worth:

I am among those who participated, briefly, in the original RFC. I have not participated here, nor do I honestly expect to, because it had already gone on far too long when I discovered that it was going on, and consequently I'd have had a lot of catching up to do. My reasons for not going further are, pretty much, the ones which have already been mentioned. Most importantly, I work; of late I've had to keep long hours. Beyond that, there are things in real life that I have to take care of. Also, I have to eat and sleep. And while none of these things preclude editing, in the abstract (indeed, I've had a rather good month, what with all the snow around), they don't tend to allow me the kind of time I'd need to really sit down and read this entire page all the way through. Nevertheless, I might do so, if I really thought, at this point, that my opinion would matter much at all. Forgive my cynicism, but I'm not sure that it will.

I've said my piece before - I think mass deletion of stubs, unreferenced or otherwise, is wrong, wrong, wrong. Much of the information contained in unreferenced BLPs is innocuous enough; rarely do I come across anything that's potentially libelous. (Once, in my four-plus years here, actually. I removed it at once.) Ought it to be sourced? Ideally, yes. But the alternative shouldn't have to be deletion. Better some information than none.

So. I'm not against an RFC. This one's just gotten too large for me to follow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent summary. I only disagree on it being a mere power struggle. I see it more as a misguided moral crusade problem. But to all practical purposes, the effects are the same. --Cyclopia^talk 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Cyclopedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - excellently put. Also, what Ser Amantio di Nicolao said above. Robofish (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullypedia?

I was quite surprised by the reactions to my "rant" above. Perhaps there *is* some hope left after all.

I wrote a response to some of the comments above, but to save peopleś patience I will post only a summary here.

I found Ikip/Okip's much more extensive collection of "consensus" polls. I can see now why he is hated so much by the sausage-making crowd.

I have also been pointed to Sep/2009 article] Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who’s Tired of Getting Beat Up. McKenna makes my rant smell like rosewater. However it seems that an actual experiment has basically confirmed its central claim — that a new well-meaning editor is almost certain to be bullied and driven away by the roaming wikivogons.

I also found another article by Shane Richmond technlogy editorialist for The Telegraph (UK), titled Wikipedia should delete the deletionists. Enough said.

At the end of 2005 Wikipedia had about 1,000,000 artcles and 16,000 regular editors, or about 60 articles for each regular editor (for a suitable definition of "regular editor"). Since 2001 the two numbers had been growing at the same rate, so the 60:1 ratio was maintained. However, since 2006 the articles have tripled, but the editor pool has shrunk to less than 10,000; so we now have 300 articles per regular editor, or five times what we had in 2005. If this trend continues, in a couple of years we will not have enough human resources to fight malicious edits, and Wikipedia will collapse.

Deletionism is not and never was a "consensus", not even a majority opinion. It is the stupid and destructuve ideology of a small minority, that prevailed by a combination of robot power and a broken "consensus" mechanism that, in any other context, would be called "ballot fraud". It is stupid, because its goal is to move Wikipedia backwards, towards obsolete standards of paper encyclopedias. It is destructive, because it has led to the loss of tens of thousands of good articles and good editors, and earned Wikipedia some very bad press — which, this time, was quite deserved. In conclusion, Wikipedia will soon change, in spite of all shrugs and so-whats. If it does not change course now, radically and quickly, it will just die in a few years.

To save itself, Wikipedia must set as its top goal the recruiting and keeping of new bona-fide editors. That includes banning deletionism and any other unnecessary practice, rule or feature that may drive those editors away, no matter how dear it may be to its inventors and users. That includes, in particular,

• scrap the notability rule,
• delete and ban all editorial article-side tags, and
• stop the paranoia about usourced BLPs.

The about-turn should also include

• undelete all the articles that have ever been deleted for non-notability alone, and
• email a contrite apology to all the editors who worked on them.

If these measures succeed in bringing back only a few hundred "lost" editors, they will be well worth the cost.

All the best (with a bit more hope) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is about the most dangerous proposal I've seen yet. I would rather endorse the destructive act of deletion on site than bring down our maintenance system and notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jorge, did you intend to post this on this page?   pablo_hablo. 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jorge, but you're going much too far this time. I agree that here have been too many deletions but this isn't an acceptable solution. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, read those external articles, check the statistics, look for case histores — and tell me who is being "destructive" here.

I have yet to see *one* concrete example of an unsourced or non-notable BLP that could bring concrete harm to Wikipedia. On the other had, the harm that deletionism has caused is enormous, well documented, and visible even to the external public. Please stop this paranoia before it destroys Wikipedia. ALl the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect most of the authors of those articles were personally mad at wikipedia for deleting something they liked. Instead of reading over our established guidelines to see our reasoning for deletion, they chose to write angry articles. Would they do the same to Britannica for leaving out a few articls? If not, then why Wikipedia? People think Wikipedia owes it to them to have an article on everything under the sun; they simply don't understand our established purpose and limits. We are an encyclopedia. If an article wouldn't appear in a normal encyclopedia people should be thankful it appears in Wikipedia, but they shouldn't be expecting it to. ThemFromSpace 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jorge, do you realize that if we do as you suggest, our article-to-editor ratio will also increase? Maurreen (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The ratio *is* increasing right now. Deleting 300,000 unsourced or non-notable articles could perhaps reduce the ratio temporarily from 300:1 to 270:1, but that is only a few months' worth of the current growth. The only way to significantly and permanently improve the ratio is to quickly recruit tens of thousands of new editors.

For example, suppose that by some miracle we recruit 50,000 new permanent editors and then somehow "close the gate" again. Even if those editors create one new article each per month, on the average, the article:editor rate would immediately drop to 50:1, and 4 years from now it would still be below 100:1.

Moreover, I suspect that today's editors are increasigly busy with "non-productive" managerial chores. So getting *fresh* editors who care about contents — including *expert* editors — is perhaps more important than just getting *more* editors. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Those managerial chores are a necessary function of the stage that this project is at; obviously the period of fastest growth is when the first articles are created.   pablo_hablo. 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Jorge, I describe myself as an inclusionist, and I am sympathetic with your point of view. I also agree wholeheartedly with you on the uselessness of the moral panic about unsourced BLPs. However WP:GNG is there for a reason: that is, ensure that we actually can write something reliable about a subject. I can agree on some exception being made on a case-by-case basis (for example, in my experience, open-source software can be of widespread use and therefore notable in the real-world meaning of the word even if no official magazines etc. covered it -and we can use with reasonable caution even less official sources in such cases). However in general if there are no reliable sources on a subject, how can we be expected to cover it? Mass undeletion and bringing tons of stuff on article space is not the answer. A nice idea could be however making a list of such deletions, if there isn't already, so that it is easier to ask an admin for their userification and reworking. --Cyclopia^talk 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jorge has some salient points, and thanks for pointing us to the Telegraph blog. There are of course plenty of totally innocuous unreferenced articles. More to the point: What we need is more control over those deletionists whose sole purpose is to increase, at a rate of 500 a day, their edit count in the firm belief that it will gain them glory, barnstars, and adminship. These trigger happy deletionists who don't even read the articles before fondling their Twinkles are the 'things' that need deleting. (I seem to think I've said all this before somewhere...) --Kudpung (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Deletionism, I think, is the worst problem we have to worry about here, and I have noticed a tendency to bite the newbies that frustrates me. But I don't think scrapping the notability guideline is the answer. If we do, then we risk opening the floodgates to an overwhelming tide of, to put it bluntly, junk articles that will swamp everything else here. Check out the list of new pages sometime; I guarantee you that within the fifty newest pages you'll see at least two or three along the lines of "OMG [so and so] is SOOOOOOOOO awsom and kewl!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111", if not more. And we must have a mechanism for removing them. If we don't, this encyclopedia becomes worse than useless, because the amount of garbage will quickly overwhelm everything else. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Articles created for obviously malicious or humorous reasons, such as those that you mention, must be deleted on sight. Ditto for any large bunch of articles that appear to have been created automatically from some database or directory. These are cases where speedy deletion is legitimate and "consensual" in the true sense of the word. That is not the case, however, for deletion of articles wich were created "by hand" and whose only fault is the "non-notability" of the subject or their lack of references. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if people educated themselves on what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, there would be far less whining about sourcing. Hope for saving this sinking ship is, however, lost. Lara 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I happen to own a paper copy of the Britannica, which I bought some 35 years ago and now occupies a substantial fraction of my modest bookshelf space at home. It was fairly useful at the time, and my kids enjoyed browsing through it; but I haven't opened it once in the last ten years.

Wikipedia may have started out with the aim of becoming a "free Britannica"; but now it is obvious that a volunteer, self-regulated task force could never reach that goal. However, it has gone off in a different direction, and went much further than that, becoming useful and popular beyond all expectations. We should recognize its strengths and build on them, rather than hurt it by chasing an obsolete goal that we cannot ever reach.

Wikipedia is not, will not be, and should not be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a wikipedia, and it should only aim to be the best wikipedia that humanity can build.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists for readers as well as editors. Even if we recruit a hundred thousand new editors, readers will still outnumber editors by at least 50:1. As a reader of Wikipedia articles, I would rather have a hundred thousand well-written, comprehensive articles than a million stubs. We have over 3.2 million articles but nearly half (1.4 million) are marked as stubs and over 670,000 have some sort of maintenance tag on them. Quantity over quality stopped being a good idea a long time ago. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "content" edits have become much scarcer in the last several years. Most entries in my watchlist nowadays seem to be pointless "form" edits, often by robots. Part of that change can be explained by the fivefold increase in article:editor ratio, noted above. It may also be that old editors are speding an increasing fraction of their time on "form" rather than contents.

However, I do not see how we could increase the quality without increasing the editor pool; and I do not see how we can do that without scrapping the notability rule. We cannot force anyone to edit only those articles that *we* think are important. Thus, we will always have a hundred stubs or low-quality articles for each reasonably good and complete article; and the we cannot get more of the latter without also getting more of the former. If the price for recruiting one regular editor is to allow a hundred stubs on non-notable subjects, or a hundred entries in "trivia" lists, that is more than worth it. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of the large proportion of readers who aren't editors. I was wondering when someone would mention them! Fortunately we don't need to choose between thousands of good articles or millions of stubs, we can have both: a GA where possible and a stub where that's the best we've managed so far. Many GAs started as a stub, and deleting it probably wouldn't have helped. Certes (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To a certain extent, we do need to decide. More articles means more effort is expended simply maintaining and monitoring them, to prevent them from getting worse. Yes, the editor might stay for 5 years and watch it himself, but its more likely that he'll create it, get bored, and never log in again. Further, as we get more articles, the average "usefulness" (i.e. how many people actually care about the subject) of articles decreases as the subjects become less significant. In February at least 3% of articles got an average of 1 page view per day or less, and that includes hits from search engine spiders and mirrors. So if efforts to actually improve articles are spread somewhat evenly, we're spending more effort improving articles that fewer people care about. To use an example, Utah State Route 269 got fewer than 50 hits last month, but it is an GA. Gas constant on the other hand, got more than 120,000 hits, but is just barely longer than an average stub. I'm not necessarily saying that we shouldn't have articles on Utah state highways, but when we expand inclusion criteria, improvement efforts can be rather lopsided in comparison to the actual usefulness of the articles. Mr.Z-man 03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said there Mr Z-Man, which is saying something as we've generally supported opposite sides throughout this RfC. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the telegraph piece, he talks about the article on Steven Wells, which was nominated for deletion clearly in bad faith, and speedily kept after about 3 hours with no one else supporting deletion. This was no battle between deletionists and inclusionists, and is typical of the journalism that surrounds wikipedia. The example given actually shows wikipedia working reasonably well. No, the article shouldn't have been nominated in the first place, but having been nominated it was pretty quickly dealt with. Quantpole (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Are you insane? - We (at least the sane editors) would never allow such a policy to be put in place. Not only would it make the entire encyclopedia fall apart, it would cause ridiculous amounts of unmaintainable articles. This isn't "PleasePutWhateverYouWantIntoThisPlacepedia", just imagine (well I can see you can't imagine) what this place would look like if we had 35 different biographies on John Doe who lives on ferry lane and has a band... and he's 10. This very proposal makes me look at you with a wary eye, although it's not as if I wasn't already with the last one. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong endorse I am so disappointed too, and this destructive theocracy will eventually ruin Wikipedia, mostly by driving away content contributors. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support As a once-zealous Wiki-contributor who has slowed down drastically due to Deletionists (only a little of ~my~ content, but a LOT of others' content ---redlinked many articles I would have wanted to have read) I'm pleased to encounter Jorge Stolfi's section above and the other one further above. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam
• Jorge quotes Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD as an actual experiment that in his words "basically confirmed its central claim — that a new well-meaning editor is almost certain to be bullied and driven away by the roaming wikivogons." I started that experiment (now better known as wp:NEWT), and also participated by creating a new account and using it to contribute new articles. The results are still there for all to see, and I do not accept that they indicate that well meaning new editors are "almost certain to be bullied and drive away". Yes some of the articles we contributed were tagged for deletion and some of those were deleted, but most survived the process unscathed. I think that our experiment confirmed what some of us had long suspected, that there is a problem for new editors creating legitimate new articles, but one shouldn't exaggerate that problem, and I'm not convinced that the solution is to abandon the deletion process. Better in my view to discuss the issues that divide us, seek consensus as to what deletion process we should have and make our standards consistent and clear to new contributors. Currently if a new editor contributes an unsourced article on a subject that meets our notability criteria, its fate depends on who happens to patrol it and if that patroller tags it for deletion, the admin who sees that tag. I would prefer to move to a new article creation process which made it clear to contributors that if their subject is a living person then they need a source from their first save; I could live with a system that merely required people to supply sources for contentious information and any information that is challenged. I'm very unhappy with our current process as in my experience it sometimes results in good faith contributions being deleted by good faith deleters. I appreciate that some deletionists were deeply offended by NEWT, and that some inclusionists will be offended by the conclusions I draw from NEWT. However I would rather that we confront our differences and try to come up with a consistent workable policy than that we continue as we have been doing with the same policies being "interpreted" in sometimes contradictory ways. ϢereSpielChequers 13:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have never seen a posting with which I agreed more than Jorge Stolfi's. In particular, the abuse of the "notability" rule has led to Wikipedia not being the "fun" it was when I first started editing in 2003. Let this comment be taken as a ringing endorsement of JS's ideas, and a concurrence with all his proposals, up to and including the extent of wishing to be considered as a co-sponsor. -- BRG (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as quite possibly the worst proposal seen in these parts yet. The editors why were "lost" because they couldn't get their Jam-in-Mom's-Basement-and-Hey-We-Have-a-Myspace-Presence band's article created are precisely the kind of people that should not be editing here. Good riddance, and move forward with better, notable, and sourced articles. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support scrapping the subjective, arrogant, and elitist "notability" as an idiotic, anti-Enlightened, and morally reprehensible basis for inclusion. We just keep seeing article after article that actually does meet any common sense standard of notability labelled as non-notable by someone who is simply ignorant of or just does not like the topic or subject matter. Notability is nothing more than a lame excuse to try to force a vocal minority's subjective and usually uninformed opinions upon others. Verifiability is sufficient for our purposes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You want to get rid of our notability guidelines because they are subjective and because they are morally reprehensible? Isn't that a rather subjective reason to get rid of those supposedly subjective rules? Anyway, random example, it is easily verifiable that bakery "Deniset Gilles" in the French town "Vaux-sous-Aubigny" exists.[3] Would you support the inclusion of an article on this bakery, and on the millions of other small, local shops and companies? Fram (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No to the former and yes to the latter. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support getting rid of most article-issues tagging. Either fix it yourself or move along. "Assigning work" to random other editors doesn't really work unless there's a clear resolve to address each tag and a team of people ready and willing to keep the backlog down. As far as getting rid of notability, no I don't think we can do that. It's a pretty low bar to pass these days. Gigs (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So you believe it is better not to be aware of existing problems at all? We have way too many articles which are unsourced or very poorly sourced. When they are tagged, everyone can easily find them and source those they feel like working on (e.g. subjects they know anything about). And until they are improved, all readers are made aware of the problems. The tags serve as a warning that the article lacks some basic aspects, an invitation to readers to become editors, and a tracking tool for existing editors to find articles with known problems. What are the disadvantages that outweigh these advantages? Fram (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving to Phase III

Discussion on the talk page has started about moving toward Phase III. My note here is just a notice; please hold any discussion on the talk page. Maurreen (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was Phase III. Sigh. Okip 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was Phase Plaid. Tarc (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we positive it's not Technicolor?--Magicus69 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm abandoning all interest in this RfC, and I guess that's what happened to the 400 contributors from Phase 1.--Kudpung (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We're getting a haircut? Cool, who's paying? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just today on my own watchlist received an announcement/invitation to join this discussion. Kinda glad I didn't hear about it earlier, because: Wow, that's a lot of frustrating wasted time and electricity documented here. I just wasted an hour myself, reading it on only this page. Don't want to be bothered with following up on archived missing bits, politickiousness, and new phases. Agree with User:Kudpung above and even more with User:Wikidemon, just above. Let's close this trainwreck, get haircuts and then get back to work. Also, please remove this banner from the TOP OF MY WATCHLIST.Duff (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Click [dismiss] and that should solve it. Killiondude (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue does not currently appear to be of such grave importance, and so many complicated points and jargon has been created over it. I agree that mistakes made in biographies should be rectified, but that does not automatically entail deletion- if you find a fault, why not correct it yourself? Of course, I can see some sort of political war emerging here and DON'T want to get involved, except to say maybe a minor change is needed. Still, hats off to the person who controlled all this! --Aubs 400 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is "controlled", could someone point me at an uncontrolled RFC? I weighed in on the first stage of this but I've just lost the interest in spending a few more hours reading this whole page to begin to understand how to weigh in again. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Next stop, Phase IV.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fast-forward to it?--Kudpung (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Confuzzled comment

I came here because of the banner notice and because of my interest in the ongoing problems with BLP. Upon arriving I see a blizzard of proposals, counter-proposals, threaded discussions, up-or-down votes and so on. I can't begin to comprehend all this. Can someone please boil it down to a Cliff's Notes version? This would help to get broader participation from those who haven't been able to follow the discussions on a real-time basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick attempt:

BLP has long stated that contentious material in a BLP requires strong sourcing.

Many BLPs, especially older ones, furnish no explicit references (many actually used "see also" as the equivalent, but bots do not understand that nuance).

Some editors feel that no material at all should be in a BLP without a specific reference (this is stronger than the extant rules) and proceeded to delete BLPs which were not officially referenced. This happened to include people like Prime Ministers.

Thus the current debate.discussion.

Positions with some backing (as best as I can list them) are:

(dividing BLPs into "extant" and "new" and handling "new" first here)

1. Delete on sight all new unreferenced BLPs
2. Create a "sticky PROD" (one which would not properly be removed unless full references for everything in the BLP are provided) for a 2 to 7 day period, following which a bot could delete the BLP
3. New Prod, but requiring a "human deletion" with the requirement that the human make some sort of efort to see if sources can be found before deletion.
4. Delete on sight all unsourced contentious material from new BLPs, and use the current AfD processes for deletion.

("old" BLPs retaining "unreferenced" tag)

1. Set up a schedule for BLPs by some sort of group, allowing bot removal after deadlines.
2. Set up a schedule, allowing for human removal after being examined to see if sources are easily found for the person
3. Set up a new Prod requiring (in parallel with the "new" sections) full references for BLPs etc.
4. New Prod with "human actions" and requirement that sources be sought prior to deletion
5. Use current AfD processes and BLP standards for deletion

Anyone who has a variant I omitted, please add hereto <g> Collect (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposals now being !voted on do not include deleting anything on sight. New unreferenced BLPs would be proposed for deletion, probably for a week. They would be deleted unless referenced. Maurreen (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to list all the positions which I saw presented. With that exception (instant delete), is the list correct? Collect (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The current proposals being !voted on are more moderate about old unsourced BLPs. Under Balloonman's proposal, there is a schedule for these to be referenced. If those goals are not met, then the idea of deleting them would be revisited. Okip's proposal is more open; he is against deletion of these. Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the summary above omitted the simplest solution: do nothing about unsourced BLPs. If anyhing has come out of this RfC, is the fact that unsourced BLP are not harmful. On the other hand, tagging them is harmful, prodding is harmful, deletion is harmful. So please stop this paranoia. Stop tagging, stop prodding, stop deleting, stop worrying, ever. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. Of course they and every unsourced article is harmful to the concept of a reliable encyclopedia. The false nature of the problem is the mistaken idea that the unsourced BLPs are in some way exceptionally hazardous. We are trying to conduct a serious project--a project that now has worldwide influence and probably the key substantial information resource that everyone uses as a matter of course . There is a certain amount of pure junk and pure advertising that has gotten submitted and not removed. But the amount of this is more than we can cope with immediately, so instead of dealing with the way to cope with it, which is attracting more editors, people have focused on a particular part where they can highlight the possibility of harm of individuals from unsourced articles that nobody looks at, and pretend to be fixing it. The real BLP problems are the bias and error and sometimes defamation in the much larger number of sourced articles. This project could almost be mistaken for a deliberate attempt to avoid calling attention to what we know is wrong, but cannot fix, by diverting attention to what isn't much wrong, but we might be able to fix if we ignored the harmful consequences of ill-thought out fixes. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And even this concedes too much. Unsourced articles do not affect our reliability; erroneous articles affect our reliabiklity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the Emperor have any clothes?

Has anyone provided any evidence, anywhere, that unsourced BLPs have significantly more errors than other articles?

Only a few people seem to have actually examined a sample; all of those I have seen have come back with the conclusion that most unsourced BLPs are accurate, and opposing proposals to automatically delete articles, whether on sight, or after a time lag.

The chief mechanism by which sources produce accuracy is that Editor A has provided sources, and Editor B has checked the sources (and with luck the article hasn't been vandalized since then), thus putting four eyes on the subject. This doesn't happen anywhere near often enough - it sometimes happens at FAC, but how many BLPs get anywhere near FA?

The current sourcing improvement drive offers something like that: an unsourced article will have its facts checked, in the process of being sourced. Ironically, the sticky PRODs and the rest of the bot-deletion proposals on this page would short-circuit exactly that process, thus destroying a real hope of getting articles which are - for a change - more accurate than average. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Amen! -- BRG (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If we summarily delete unreferenced BLPs (even if only new ones) where will this end? Delete all old uBLPs? Delete all unreferenced articles about companies, music groups/bands, and other groups of people where these are still actively trading/performing/etc. Delete articles on same even if the groups are long defunct/disbanded. Delete all unreferenced articles, full stop... I really don't like the look of that possible chain of events... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

for example, here is a a macarthur genius grant winner, UBLP getting Prod'ed [4] Pohick2 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? We have not settled ANYTHING. No decisions have been announced but the BLP:PROD is already in effect? Articles are on a quick path to deletion when we are still debating the issue. When there is sizable opposition to doing exactly this step? This goes to show that the decision has already been made for us, and some people, specifically User:Abductive is inserting PRODs when we have not settled on using such a PROD.Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They can be removed - and should be. I removed a "notability" tag from a Guggenheim Fellow myself yesterday. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(not picking on this one individual), the concern i have is the group think that tags away without common sense. how much of the UBLP "problem" would go away, if the taggers would stop making silly "non-notable" claims. it's unclear that there is any buy-in from taggers to change their behavior; are these folks going to continue wasting my time regardless of the outcome here? in my sweep through the A's, i saw some non-notable, some easily referenced with a google, some that have links and not inline references: how are we to get them to tag the non-notable only? Pohick2 (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

for example: president of vassar geting Proded [5] Pohick2 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty in improving the processes generally is that the harm from the submitted garbage is immediate and obvious, while the harm from rejecting usable material is much less obvious-- the discouragement of new editors who are needed to counter the inevitable attrition of the current people here. The situation leads itself to quack remedies. The principal class of such remedy is to to try to fix something that it looks like we can fix by simple drastic indiscriminate action , however unimportant, and however irrelevant they may be to the actual problems of the site. The BLP situation is just that. The rare serious problems attract attention, for the same reason that individual troubles attract tabloid readers--people identify with them, and ignore the much greater problems of the actual world. The current unsourced BLP issue is a tabloid approach to Wikipedia--sensationalism rather than sense. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

here, here - and UBLP is a quick and dirty management by numbers and slogans, not quality leadership. the process improvement requires a change of attitude: the hard work of thinking before tagging, and editing before rejecting. -- increasing the scrap rate, (deletion rate) will not increase quality; rather, there must be continuous process improvement. new article creation quality must increase; new quality standards (inline references) must be implemented, as a part of the standards process.</Edwards Deming channel> i wish i could say that we have that leadership, but i'm afraid we will continue to suffer without it. Pohick2 (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Better approach: Let users with 500 or 5000 edits can see deleted articles

I cannot read main points let alone all statements above. AFDs are taking way too much time and effort we all can spend on improving articles and references themselves. To keep it short

• Do not delete unsourced BLPs, if you don't do anything to improve drawbacks, as you currently propose according to deletionist approach

Or better

• Keep AFDs shorter, simpler and time independent, and if the article is unsourced or not well written enough, List deleted articles in a page, And let users with a certain amount of edits, e.g. 500-5000 or elected members of Deleted Article Rescue Squadron who have high contributions, can see, improve and rescue deleted articles after a review process if they feel like. And after they improve the content, there may be a review about whether improvements are sufficient or not before article to be re-published, by admins or users, especially the article editors and AFD voters.

Updated proposal over process dated March 01, 2010:

• List, tag and sort deleted pages per category, date, alphabetically etc.
• Create a task for to revive deleted content per reference and content improve. A similar task force before AFDs are already exist named Article Rescue Squadron. So either:
  • Let users with 500-5000 edits and/or contributions and/or articles created access deleted page data
  • Let members of Deleted Article Rescue Squadron access data. Who elected among users with 500-5000 edits by users and/or admins and/or related wiki project members.
• Create a new RFR (Request for Revival) and UR (Undeletion Review) process after the articles are improved by TaskForce or editors, to cut AFDs shorter. AFDs are currently consuming so much time users may use over improving articles and references, and put a huge stress over contributors of the articles, even discourages new editors so much that they stop contributing to the wikipedia. And that is mainly because after an article is deleted, reviving it back is even much more time consuming and requires debates which result blood feuds.

Currently only admins can see deleted articles, and since it is that way we have really harsh and unproductive AFDs, especially when people desperately try to save articles that can be improved. Kasaalan (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: numbers are hypotethical they may change according to user input. Kasaalan (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Debate 1: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits

• Support as nominator. Kasaalan (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Foundation's Legal Counsel has rejected this in the past. NW (Talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Then they made a serious mistake. It may be re-proposed. Wikipedia tries to do it things in the hard and time consuming way. We are losing so much content, and time during AFDs that once deleted, the access to the data and ability to improve to sufficient standards are impractical for regular users, and interestingly since non-participants aren't aware of every AFD which lasts 15 days, most of us cannot vote or improve articles afterwards even if we care. Let alone the regular AFD, now people try to claim we should massacre 10.000s of articles. Very productive. Why don't we just hide, and skip long-tiring debates, then just unhide the article when some users who care improves them. My proposal is not about extremely weak or copyright violation articles, but many articles who just lacks some improvements or a few references. Creating a page from scratch is really time consuming. Also hide processes will prevent restarting and reAFD processes. Kasaalan (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The legal counsel opinion mentioned above applies to libellous statements contained in any kind of article. As far as I can tell, it says (quite logically) that such material shall be permanently removed, not ony from the articles, but also from their histories and anywhere else they coud be seen by the "public". The equation "libellous material" = "unsourced BLPs" was shown to be completely false, but unfortunately facts do not seem to be welcome here. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a thought experiment it's an interesting proposal. However, as far as I know it would require some technical changes to the software, and some procedures, that are probably not worth the trouble. We can't really use community consensus to compel the Foundation to expend development resources. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes are already in the code, they were just never "turned on".--Father Goose (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. I would make this privilege something that can be granted to trusted users, like rollback. But also, I think this is a separate question from whether to flag and delete the back catalog of unsourced BLP articles on a schedule. It just takes a little of the pressure off. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Debating and voting community wide issues with a few dozen people is wrong in the first place. Attack or copyright-violation parts in articles aside, no there may not be any harm with keeping unreferenced pages in hidden state, until some editors will reference and revive them. Mike Godwin is utterly wrong in his own imaginative statement. Kasaalan (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely never this has been explicitly vetoed by Wikipedia's Legal Counsel, and thus would not happen even in the extremely unlikely event it gained community consensus. Which it wouldn't. You're free to state your disagreement, but you're not the one paying Wikipedia's legal bills. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Starblind, link please. Okip 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Right [[6]]. (For reference, this was in the first comment). While Jorge notes that Mike Godwin's comments only apply to libelous comments, I'd be interest to see how he intends to separate those comments out. (Given that this would require the review of all deleted content ever before it could be made readable. (Further, why is this even in the BLP RfC? This isn't really a BLP issue in any sense) -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. It's a famous perennial proposal. I personally agree with such proposals -I can't see why letting autoconfirmed users seeing deleted articles is a big deal -after all, Deletionpedia allowed that to everyone for a specific time frame, and I haven't seen the sky falling. However I am not the Foundation's lawyer, so we can't but comply. --Cyclopia^talk 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I like the idea, but some ideas, no matter how good, will never happen here. Okip 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's comments on the subject failed to take into account any scheme by which libel and copyvios would be marked as "restricted" by the deleting admin, and only be viewable by other admins. It's not a no-go, from a legal point of view; it would have to be implemented in a way that addresses the legal issues. I happen to think it would require trivial changes to the implementation to do so.--Father Goose (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that once we've changed the systems to allow anyone to look at deleted edits unless they've been marked as restricted, for new deletions it would be relatively easy but very time consuming for the deleting admins to mark some edits as restricted due to libel and others as merely deleted. But going through millions of already deleted articles to sort their edits into restricted due to libel and otherwise would be an enormous task; As we don't have as many active admins as we had a couple of years ago, I would suggest not implementing a change like this that would require lots of extra admins until we manage to reverse the decline of active admins and get the numbers back to at least a hundred above the last peak. Also after implementing it I suggest that all articles already deleted default to restricted until an admin has looked at them and unrestricted whatever doesn't have legal problems - logically you'd need a page for requests to unrestrict articles and a system of marking the millions of already deleted articles as patrolled by the admin who reviews to see what can be unrestricted. In the history of Wikipedia there have been nearly two thousand admins who between us have performed nearly 8 million admin actions, over 6 million of which have been deletions. Reviewing over 6 million deleted pages and deciding which edits can be unrestricted would be a large amount of work, and even if we could recruit thousands of admins to do it, and motivate them to do this rather than improve wikipedia, I can think of several better uses for that resource. Better by far to fix RFA and appoint all longterm, civil, clueful editors as admins so that those trustworthy editors who need to look at deleted edits can do so. ϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed all previously deleted articles would have to be marked as restricted by default, and only unrestricted after review. However, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good idea to make deletions viewable by regular editors going forward. And one way of making the "review" task more useful would be to create lists according to date (more recently deleted articles are likelier to be relevant than very old ones) and deletion process (prods/AfDs/speedies, with speedies probably being the least important to review).
Not that there's much use in discussing the implementation of deletion-viewing in this RfC either way.--Father Goose (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

if there are those who want to go ahead with this it might make sense to spin this section off into a separate RFC. If so I would have thought that reason for deletion would be a better thing to prioritise for review. {{A7}} because many actors and athletes may have become notable since they were deleted and {{A3}} because it is the most likely spedy deletion criteria to be incorrectly used. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Come on. For a trial period, we may give that privileges to editors with 1.000, 2.000, 5.000 or even 10.000 edits, and we may use that policy for future AFDs only to prevent misuse if that is all the concern. And for the previous articles we may create a task force, and elect its members who are willing to rescue those articles. Also as other editors said, with a second read Mike's advise is about copy violation and attack pages, unreferenced pages are different and they will be kept hidden to rest of the world and will be accessed by a few hundred or thousand users anyway, admins are the same for a similar perspective. And for proving they are copy paste or plagiarism admin have to find original link to the text anyway, so deleting that part is not harder than just an edit. Marking a deleted article with a preset, tag or button is not time consuming more than 10 seconds. Admins should have read all deletion discussions anyway, although time to time I am not sure all admins follow that policy, so 10 more seconds is nothing. Also it is coders job to develop more tools, they earn monthly salaries for it. Kasaalan (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaw Drop - Hold on one second while I get a bot to make vandal revisions... Y Done... wooohoo! I can now see deleted articles. - Another foolhardy proposal which fails to recognize all if the issues that would amount if this actually came into action. Not only would I not ever trust everyone with 500 edits to see deleted information, a lot of deleted information is things that only people who have been voted in by the community should even be able to see. (Remember it is also considered the Poor man's oversight) Only a damn idiot would think that this would be acceptable. Oh of course... Okip and Cyclopia have added their support for this. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you've been banned before you got to the cutoff for being a vandalism-only account. Offer a realistic argument, please.--Father Goose (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How is vandalism reverting... vandalism? Your attempt to invalidate my argument with an invalid argument has failed; please try again. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You said "vandalism revisions", not reversions, which I took to mean "vandalism edits". But even if you made 500 legitimate edits, you'd only be able to see stuff that was neither a BLP or copyvio, given that "tiered deletions" is the only way it could be legally implemented. In other words, after making 500 edits, you'd be able to see even less harmful information than you can already see as an IP just by looking through deleted revisions of existing articles, where tons of vandalism, copyvios, and personal attacks lurk.--Father Goose (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You trust even IPs to edit every part of the encyclopedia, yet you do not trust editors with 5000 edits to access deleted non-attack content so that if they can reference and improve they can revive the articles. If they cannot Wikipedia will not publish their articles anyway, their proposals might be reviewed before re-publish. Kasaalan (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When have we ever let IPs edit every part of the encyclopedia? — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also wikipedia should separate edit count with contribution count as I propose. Most of editor with high number edits are actually doing extensive anti-SPAM work, simple or unproductive reverts, administrative duties, or talk page chat, content removal etc. Moreover as I said, we may create a task force and elect its members who are willing to revive and will have access to deleted content. Kasaalan (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the quantity of edits that count it's the quality; and it's not the amount of work you do, or the type, it's the fact that you do it at all. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quantity of progressive contribution count is a better indicator than quantity of edit count. If you upload an image that is 1 contribution. If you revert a spam, it is a simple and useful edit but no actual contribution. Kasaalan (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Takes a lot of pressure off our shoulders. It is much easier to provide references for an existing article than to write a new referenced article. However, all unreferenced articles should be deleted eventually if no references are provided. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We may replace the process with RFU (Review for Undeletion) so that if the article is improved enough a certain amount of user votes or an admin decision after RFU debate might revive content. AFD debates are sure unproductive, and most of the time we debate over whether to keep or delete an established content for lack of or quality of verifiable references, even if we know the content of the article is true or claimed to be true. Kasaalan (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding ...users with a certain amount of edits, e.g. 500-5000 or elected members of Deleted Article Rescue Squadron who have high contributions, can see, improve and rescue deleted articles after a review process.Well, I've said beforen but I can't remember where: I think this is potentially dangerous because all it would do would give more licence to the drive-past taggers who have no other interest than to increase their edit counts. Some of these self-appointed Wikipedia policemen have edit counts in the tens of thousands from doing 500 tags an hour, which proves that they are not in the slightest bit interested in even reading the article or its history (I can cite examples). Maturity & responsibility would be much better criteria, than allowing more fuel to the adolescents here who treat the whole encyclopedia as a forum and a race to see who can use Twinkle, Hotcat, and friendly fastest. (I can cite examples). --Kudpung (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The issue is you cannot separate everyone, unless you develop a contribution count process which should replace edit count process. On the other hand taggers, anti-spammers and reverters have no intention on article rescuing anyway, so they cannot misuse the privileged. Also as I propose there might be a certain task force for the job, whose members are notable contributors. Kasaalan (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate 2: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits

Four points,

1. A group of admins who undelete articles already exists, User:Ikip/AfD I created a list on the category talk page of who was most responsive to undeletion requests and this was heavily criticized so I deleted it.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion WP:REFUND already exists. (Also note WP:Article Rescue Squadron and WP:Article Incubator)
3. As User:Apoc2400 showed here, User:Apoc2400/Deletion list, Google cache is available for a period after the deletion.
4. "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-grumpy-and-closedminded.html. Retrieved 2009-05-08.  Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225) Which lead journalists to say some pretty negative things about wikipedia governance.[7]

Okip 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reply
• I know Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion WP:REFUND etc, but RFR (Request for Revival) in a taskforce talk, so that after they improve article taking a Undeletion Review by admins or users, are 2 completely different approach. Either you will

1. Harshly debate-cause huge stress and longstanding blood feuds among arguing sides, then delete the article and discourage contributors by AFDs, then make it complicated to access data for a second try by bureaucracy via admins who are already too busy and tired by RFU
2. Just hide data, unless it is legally troublesome/attack page, until an editor/taskforce improves references/content to the required quality, then Unhide article if it is approved by Undeletion Review.

• I know google cache or mirror sites are available, but that is not known to many users as you may also know
• You are right about there are manual, time consuming, unpredictable and long-tiring processes for accessing deleted data via particular admins via unnecessary bureaucracy if they accept your requests, which I already know unlike many new or regular users. Yet how do you expect some user to request deleted content from an admin, if he doesn't know whether the article is worth saving or not, when he cannot read the content previously, let alone he is aware of such processes. If the deleted pages count 10.000s we need at least 100s or 1000s of people, which can be accomplished either via edit count restriction or a Task Force Squad. Manually doing things via unnecessary bureaucracy just reminds me Third world country governmental and law processes. Kasaalan (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Letting editors see deleted content has been raised countless times over the years. Policy only changes because editors are stubborn and don't give up. For one of the more extreme examples, see WP:FICT which has been rejected by the community numerous times since 2003, but is still a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" because a handful of stubborn editors want these rules bad enough. Unless you folks are willing to push for change, stubbornly refusing to give up, these comments for change will be quickly forgotten after this RFC is closed. But before you attempt to change things, it is important to realize that Mr. Wale's company culture, developed over eight years, is opposed to allowing non-admins see deleted comments.
  As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:
  No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires. Okip 13:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• We are wasting effort via unnecessary AFDs. Most of the time the issue is not attack or any serious violation, but just a page that needs paraphrasing, copy editing of reference addition. Sandbox is not practical and efficient, especially to new and independent editors who doesn't know the community well or have connections. Since the way of wiki is collaboration, not acting like Rambo.
• It depends point of view. Maybe the issue is with status quo. If similar concerns are raised over the years by many independent parties continuously, and if status quo defenders always points previous debates as a proof of their legitimacy, there is something wrong with the process. Kasaalan (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The context in which we discuss all this is very different from a few years ago. There have been millions of deletions take place, and as a result there is now a significant chance that if you want to create an article on someone you will see that an article of that name has previously been deleted. Also adminship has become a very big deal to many of the !voters at RFA and therefore is, or is perceived to be, out of reach to many of the editors who would find it useful. I have had two undeletion requests for articles I have deleted, one was for a different person of the same name and the other was to create an article for someone of the same name as the subject of an attack page. I think there is a certain chill effect on people wanting to create a page for an article that has previously been deleted, and I'm not sure what the best way is to combat that. But I fear that we have lost some potential articles because an article for a different and unnotable person of the same name has already been deleted, and therefore the editor assumes that an article on the notable person of that name would be unwelcome. I think that fixing RFA would be very difficult, persuading more people to undergo RFA is much more practical, as is persuading more users to talk to an admin if they are thinking of writing an article where an article of that same name has previously been deleted. I for one promise to be civil to any editor querying one of my past deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• If the article is a regular one the debates are generally limited to Notability and References etc. between deletionists and inclusionists. Yet if the person or article is related to a political or any other controversial issue, it gets nastier and nastier. Most of the time, even for non-controversial articles, especially new and area focused users who create/contributes the article are discouraged and dragged into AFD so much that they lose spirit and even feel like leaving the project. They can't even improve the article much during AFDs because of the time stress for the end of AFD, thinking if the page will be deleted why bother. We have to shift the balance of effort over AFDs to article improvements to rescue articles with issues. We debate and debate. So I propose a better system as I propose in de-adminship discussions:
• Make a Wiki Vote page where all eligible users can easily vote time-independently by reading the briefs of all proposals, instead discussing wiki-wide procedures in old long-lasting debate fashion with few hundred people, which will result the policies to be more dynamic.
• AFDs are the same, instead debating with a few watchlist editors then closing the case which leads deleting, just hide the content so that some eligible editors can revive the article later when they find time, and create a ReReview for Article from community. Kasaalan (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate 3: Access right to deleted pages for users with 5000 edits

• So, if this is implemented, which of the 35 oversighters are going to go through all of the 30,000,000 or so deleted edits to remove the ones that contain copyright violations or libel? Mr.Z-man 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • a) It would be admins, not oversighters who would be reviewing deleted articles (not individual edits); b) I'd be happy to be one of the admins who reviewed previously deleted articles; c) even if we only implemented view-deleted on articles deleted from this day forward, it'd be an improvement over the current situation, which is permanent blackout for all but admins. Arbcom itself suggested that there was potential value in letting regular editors read and review deleted content -- it deserves a thoughtful evaluation, not a reflexive rejection.--Father Goose (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Totally support. We may solve issues progressively. Also sorting 30.000.000 articles by their length and categories would be a good start from an amount of data approach. Kasaalan (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no way to say "only articles deleted after a certain point can be viewed" - its all or nothing. Even if it was possible, it would still greatly increase the workload on the oversighters. And even if we required every active admin to do this, that's still a 3000:1 revision:person ratio. But personally, I would resign the tools before wasting hours of my time doing that. I have much better things to do than sift through crap so a handful of people can indulge their curiosity without having to go through the incredibly laborious task of asking an admin to email them a copy or userfy it. The whole purpose of deletion is that we use it for content we don't want people to see. The only reason it isn't permanent is so that we can undo mistakes. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• No, per Mr-Zman and the others who point out that this is perennially rejected for a reason. Also, why is this in the BLP RfC? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether Kasslan's idea is workable, the proposal emphasizes a greater point (which the well-stated points of Jorge Stolfi and Septentrionalis also evidence). Which is that the above proposal "Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy" is the only point approaching consensus in this RFC.--Milowent (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • How do you figure? Part I (supporting a sticky-prod) has both the highest number of support votes as well as the greatest support percent (last I checked, it was over 80%). Granted, this isn't a vote necessarily, but I don't see how you can claim that the "nothing needed" is the dominant opinion when it has a lower number of total votes as well as a lower support percentage by quite a large margin. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I will confess that like 99% of wikipedia editors, I do not have total understanding (or even close to it) of the various permutations of this discussion. So its a good thing its not a vote, because I guess it depends where and when we count from, and who could pick a winner? We already have a prod system, whether its tweaked or not. But the new voices who survey the landscape and comment, like the three I mentioned, should be considered carefully.--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Milowent, this is the crux of the problem. Every time someone objects to some sweeping approach to biographical articles on living people, the same group of people respond with, in effect, "if you knew what we knew, you wouldn't object to what we want to do." But the rest of us don't know what the extent of the problem is, nor why current policies don't work. (And saying that "we've waited X months for this problem to be fixed" is a red herring: some of us have been waiting for a reasonable solution to be proposed, & the fact that stable versions was promised as the definite solution, submitted to the community for approval, failed to gain approval narrowly, then was dropped & forgotten -- all this only shows that a certain group doesn't want to explain the problem. They apparently just want a club to smite the great unwashed masses with.) An honest explanation of how large the problem is, why all existing approaches fail, & why deleting unsourced biographical articles of living people will solve this problem could convince those of us who don't agree. In other words, reaching out to the rest of us who don't have the time or interest to follow the often trivial internal debates of Wikipedia to gain our support. Any other approach will definitely make the rest of us more cynical about this project, make it harder for us to extend good faith to others, & in some cases be the final insult that will drive us away. (Unless the PTB believe Wikipedia has enough contributors.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Um..... I don't know who told you flagged revisions was dropped and forgotten. In fact many of us are still anxiously waiting flagged revisions. However there's not much we can do, since the foundation is still working on it. Even the small number of people with coding experience probably couldn't help, since the foundation have said the problem isn't that they don't have enough people coding, and they would have put more (paid) people if they thought it would help but they didn't because it wouldn't. If you are interested, I suggest you keep abreast of things [8]. There's also the lab for you to try [9]. Also I don't know who told you flagged revisions was some magic solution to any and all BLP problems. (Was it the same person who told you flagged revisions was forgotten about? If so you really should stop listening to this person and perhaps ask them to be more careful in the future about spreading misinformation...) Definitely, while many BLP/N regulars and others worried about BLPs consider that flagged revisions would likely help, it's no magic solution simply part of the puzzle. Flagged revisions for example will do nothing about any existing libel (and I mean real libel). It's not going to make attack articles disappear. It's not going to somehow add references to unreferenced articles. As I've said, I don't know many of those concerned about BLPs ever said it would. For whoever did tell you that, I suggest you take it up with them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Let us not ignore that to authorise those with sufficiently high edits counts would expressly include the hundreds of trigger happy happy editors and self appointed Wikpedia policemen who hardly ever read what they are tagging because their sole mission is to gain some kind of glory based on that edit count. Basing it on an edit count would be fine, if it were supported by some other criteria that demonstarte maturity and responsibility. However, even the RfA system fails miserably on this, and has been known to commit some monumental blunders in according sysop status.--Kudpung (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as established editors, who are here to edit, but do not want/need to block/unblock/protect/unprotect, absolutely should be able to see deleted contributions, especially their own. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what exactly you guys missed. The Foundation Legal Counsel has rejected this. Even if all 11 million English Wikipedia editors signed a petition saying "we want view-delete as a user group", the developers would not be allowed to turn it on. I'm in favor of some sort of middling usergroup between admin and autoconfirmed (or I was at one time; I really haven't reexamined my views), but until you can convince Mike Godwin to change his mind, we can't do anything about this. NW (Talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know that 11 million members elects the counsel right. Kasaalan (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting that from. The Board of Trustees, which has a minority of members elected directly from the community, as well as Erik Möller and Sue Gardner (likely), are responsible for hiring the staff of the WMF. There is a reason the community doesn't deal with the legal issues. NW (Talk) 11:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be cautious about legal cases. Though that does not mean you cannot trust a few thousand top contributoring/content creating editors to access non-referenced articles for reference improve, so if it is accepted by a Article Review for unhiding them. The main issue with deletions are we don't even know what it deleted for the 99.9 percent of cases we don't know and don't have access. Kasaalan (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This appears impractical to apply to already-deleted articles as it would take a lot of work to identify which of them are appropriate for it. However, it does seem possible that it could be applied starting from now and the decision made by the deleting admin. In one way this wouldn't achieve as much, but it could be done, which gives it an advantage. Any thoughts? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't possible, at least not without significant changes to the software. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That makes this whole discussion rather pointless then. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
      • It is arguable if it will need a lot of coding. On the other hand even if it requires, coders job is to code, they earn money that way. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • If a few people code a hard task, it will save millions of users from wasting countless hours. Kasaalan (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • No, it isn't arguable. I know that it will need a lot of coding. What's arguable is whether it would even be feasible and whether the foundation would actually allow it. How many paid coders do you think Wikimedia actually has? Most of the software is done by volunteers. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Its really all about deleting articles

To delete or not delete, that is the real question. Whether it nobler to make the mind suffer the outrageous misfortunate of the slings and arrows against our knowledge. Or is it better to take arms against those who will remove it?

It gets down to this: Do we want wikipedia content to be limited? Do we want articles chosen by a popularity contest? Or do we wish to collect and dispense the cumulative knowledge of the world? We have a certain faction that wishes to control and limit what the world can know. It is a form of censorship, no matter what semantic you choose to place upon it. The great universities of the world did not become great by telling their students what to learn. Great researchers do not make discoveries by sticking with the most popular ideas. Their knowledge and progress happen because the information they dispense is challenged. Opposing viewpoints are considered.

Knowledge is an accumulation of information and as I have described it previously, its all parts of a jigsaw puzzle. How that puzzle works on wikipedia is a collection of links. Do we want to have more red links to go to what we don't know? Or do we want blue links to display what we do know? We can't possibly know everything. Our database is weak where editors have not filled in the blanks. Stub articles exist because nobody has bothered to add to them. Does that make the articles unimportant, not necessarily. They just suffered from nobody taking the time. Do you expect it to improve when there is no place for that information to go; when there is hostile resistance that threatens to remove any attempt to fill in those deleted blanks. Try re-creating an article that has been deleted, you'll get a SPEEDY deletion within minutes. Try to develop it, its already gone. Get help from others, possibly with a different point of view, that has been rendered impossible. It is a very effective system to quash information.

In order to achieve the notability standard, articles become limited, focused on the claim of notability, frequently ignoring a career of work that led to the notable achievement. OK, we do occasionally have a case where somebody will spend 40 years selling insurance, then suddenly become a hero, but most of the stub subjects have much more depth to their lives. This concept of notability encourages shallow articles. It discourages articles about "borderline" significant players.

What is right? Does any person claim to know that answer? Do you think you can make the right decision about what is proper for deletion? You're that good? Seriously, nobody is that good. We need to present information, as broadly and specifically as we can. Give our millions of readers the opportunity to find their own impression of the truth, rather than limit it to what a relative handful of administrators decides is the truth. Every little piece of information you destroy hurts wikipedia far more than the few pieces of mis-information we present here. Yes, we would all like to it to be perfect. Its an admirable goal. Will it happen, of course not. Will we get closer to it by depending on the opinions of a handful of administrators, or thousands of editors? Will we get more serious editors by deleting their articles--every one of which they certainly put thought and effort into--or will we progressively piss each one of them off and watch their efforts to keep improving our knowledge disappear along with their articles?

So admit it, the real issue here is not sourcing, or BLPs, or liability, or contentiousness. Its: Do you want to delete articles? That is why this discussion has degenerated into a discussion about reviving deleted articles. Oh, this only the sub-standard articles, the ones nobody reads. Who sets the standard? As was linked to the above concept of "stable articles," "stub" and "expansion" are normal, logical progressions of an article's life. Killing them in infancy, killing even a seemingly useless stub mention of one character (an incomplete BLP) in a collection of connected individuals squashes the opportunity for an editor to discover and take interest in the article or series of articles in that subject.

This (supposed) debate has been offered and conducted by a group that wishes to find new methods and new excuses to delete more information. In the time we have been debating these proposals, had the vocal deletionists spent a small percentage of the time I have spent reading these articles in question, all of them would already be reviewed. The few that might be controversial or libelous, would already be identified. Of course, that would represent an effort to save material. Instead, I'm finding they are chasing my path and probably other people who are trying to save articles, deleting our work to make sure the articles remain in the list of unreferenced BLPs. They want to beat down resistance. We already know "That number isn't going down, so we have to delete articles" will be their cry. These (multiple expletives deleted)s will do anything deceitful to give themselves another tool they can abuse to control what the world knows. Control is the key word that keeps coming up. That is what they want. That is their psychosis as well outlined in "=Thoroughly disappointed=". I am imagining them on their deathbed as they give their list of lifetime accomplishments . . . "I joined in to the most powerful tool to spread knowledge around the world, and I squashed it."Trackinfo (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for venting, again. More is always better so please continue! Active Banana (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

on the contrary, I do no tdisdain any contribution--and I think it's a misunderstanding that deserves a response:

I do not think it's about "Do we want wikipedia content to be limited?". At most, it's about what way we want Wikipedia content to be limited, and where we are going to draw the bar with bio articles. Without WP:N in some form, we'd have no real advantages over the web as a whole, and the question of whether academics could trust us would never arise--indeed, the question of whether ayoone could trust us at all would never arise. Nor would most of us writing serious content be found here--a policy of this sort would certainly drive me straight to Citizendium. Moreover, it's not addressed to the problem--even if we had no WP:N, WP:V is a basic principle, I think almost everyone here does agree on at least that. The question is , how stringent should the equirement for WP:V and WP:N be? -- which are separate questions. Regardless of the level of WP:N wedecide on--and it is entirely up to us to decide on it for different types of aticles, how good must the evidence be for it?

Now it is true that a stringent requirement for WP:V and a limit on what we count ar WP:RS for BLP will have the effect of removing some of the articles we would have at whatever level of Notability we choose. Possibly, some of the people who would like a higher bar for notability and cannot get consensus for it, would like to approach the problem that way. I think they're wrong to do so--it will cut off the middle-level as well as the borderline notable articles, especially in subjects fields and countries where the systematic bias of available sources limits us. But I do not think this affects most ofthepeople here arguing for restrictions. Personally, I think it's a disgrace that we still have unsourced BLPs, though whether they are borderline in terms of notability is something I consider less important. Nobody could write a bio without some source at their disposal, unless they're going by family oral tradition. Many of the unsourced BLPs are perfectly easy to source. We should have caught these at the beginning. We're finally doing something about it now. The problem is to do it in such a way that we do have the opportunity to source them, at leastto the point of WP:V. Thisis actually one of the easier problems to fix: now we need to see about ch3ecking, updating and revising , all of our articles on a rregular basis. I'm not sure this was the best place to start, but it's not a bad one. It gets usstarted with what really is the easiest end of the problem. I don't think it's the most critical, but it is the easiest. There is only one way of doing it that would be worse than the present situation of havin gthem without tryingto source--and that is removing them without trying to source. It's that last clause which is the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have on many occasions gone through fights with other editors over whether something is notable. Generally it has been a case that the other person does not know a thing about the subject, so assumes non-notable. Jorge and Trackinfo have it right. Notability is in the eyes of the beholder; if anyone is interested in looking up information about someone/something, that person/thing is notable enough. I have seen some articles that I thought were stupid to include, yet I would never propose deletion on notability grounds, because I think that obviously, someone thought the subject important to include. I just got over a fight with an editor over an article I had created five years ago, which at this point was flagged as unreferenced and "sub-notable." Suddenly, I had to devote a lot of effort to this 5-year-old article (spread over 2 days) to put in references (back in 2005, there was no such thing as a <ref> tag!) and enough additional material to establish notability. All my other Wikipedia editing had to stop while I devoted time, which could have been more productively utilized, to save this 5-year-old article. And if this other editor had simply done a rather easy Google search, she could have gotten this information. Really, anyone who puts an "unreferenced" tag on something without trying to do their own search for a source is, to my mind, no better than a vandal. -- BRG (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. And in a way, I can relate to this. About mid-November last year, I started an article about the ghost town Silver Reef. And for the first month or two of its life, everything was going perfectly well. Until, that is, I tried upgrading it to a B-Class article. That's when an editor stepped in and changed it back to a C-Class article. They claimed that Silver Reef wasn't well-referenced, and they also claimed that two of the references were from "unreliable sources." This editor also claims that they have many reliable references to add to Silver Reef. They've been claiming this almost since the very beginning of the article. I keep asking myself, "When are they going to put these references in? Why do they keep putting it off?" The thought that they were lying finally came to me. The Utahraptor (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

what we have is failure to communicate. we have people who seek to direct volunteers to edit articles that have been tagged by bot. they would rather argue and game the wiki rules than improve articles. they want to be in charge, but not be responsible. they want to find ways to Prod and Speedy because they are too lazy to go to RfD. " Many of the unsourced BLPs are perfectly easy to source. We should have caught these at the beginning. We're finally doing something about it now." Agreed, but the dysfunctional process of threatening deletion to force others to improve articles worsens the project: editors are driven away by the biting behavior. I for one don't appreciate being led by the nose: therefore, i will do my 500, and return to my other tasks. i will ignore the non-leaders, if they wish to delete some articles, they will find i can create them faster than they can delete. for example we have MZMcBride who edits article space only 20% of the time Proding articles, spending most of his time talking on user pages, RfC's, and AfD's [10] clearly his priorities are not my own. Pohick2 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

just to quibble for the sake of arguemnt "Without WP:N in some form, we'd have no real advantages over the web as a whole". well the advantage would be an organization of references in an essay format about the non-notable subject. the web (or a google) is unformed, disconnected, and unfriendly. if you combine google hits into a comprehensible whole, that is an improvement. the reason to have a notability standard is to focus editor time on subjects most likely to be useful to searchers. a rubric of limits, like the acquisition criteria for a library. Pohick2 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that notability is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, the majority (it appears) of such beholders are 'one-off' creators of BLPs and are therefore not in the slightest bit interested in cluing themselves up with the rules, regulations, guidelines, on the 100s of pages of Wikipedia policy before they start. Odd how they conveniently fail to notice the Encyclopedic content must be verifiable notice below every edit window. I still maintain that criteria to create new BLPs should include forced user registration, minimum of 3 days membership, and at least one perfectly verifiable source , not open collaborative-Internet sites such as the IMDB source. --Kudpung (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see arguments for making our notability guidelines a little stricter or a little more relaxed, or just resolving some of the anomalies that to my mind make it much easier for a professional sportsperson to qualify for a wikipedia article than a published academic. But we do get 9 year olds writing obituaries on pet hamsters and articles on rock bands who will hold their first rehearsal next Tuesday if they can find a bass guitarist; I would be very uncomfortable if wikipedia didn't retain the editorial control to reject such entries. However I think that debating notability is a digression from this RFC, as the focus here is supposed to be on whether or not unsourced BLP are so unacceptable that they have to be eradicated regardless of notability. If people want to alter the notability rules I would suggest a separate RFC would be in order. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, nicely put. At least someone else agrees that a considerable number of the crap BLPs are about sportskids in a vlllage elemenrary school team,, garage band members, and obvious attempts by children to become Wikipedians. However, as you also correctly point out, notability is not one of the four completely different issues already being discussed on this page in utter, total, and complete confusion.--Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a terribly misleading statement. I've opened and read thousands of the unreferenced BLPs, I've found sources for hundreds. I've seen articles that I don't know how to source, but I have not seen any as frivolous as the examples you cite. Maybe those have already been deleted and even I would agree to the rational deletion of such extreme examples. But to categorize any part of the articles in this discussion as being that "crap" (to use your word) is inappropriate. Its just as irresponsible to categorize these 40K of articles as being libelous. A handful might be. I've found heavily referenced articles I would consider libelous if I were the person on the receiving end--but then if I had those charges against me, as documented in court records, I wouldn't be happy about it, even though it was true. The truth sometimes hurts.Trackinfo (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After the above I think I should articulate a few categories that encompass the majority of these unsourced BLP articles:

1) Athletes--predominantly "footballers" who qualify under WP:ATHLETE playing professionally someplace around the world. Some crew of editors have entered thousands of these, also cricketeers, hurlers (I don't even know the sport), American Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Australian Rules Football--the list of sports with stat heavy stub articles about these players is huge.

2) Government officials--tons of government officials, many of them in countries that (how do I say this diplomatically?) don't speak english, don't necessarily have their web documentation in a visible or understandable form for english speakers. Again, somebody has entered these articles so we can identify who these people are and what they do. I have no idea how to verify this stuff and obviously neither did the person who entered it. I've tried to chase the chain on several of these names, sometimes finding references to these people on diplomatic websites of larger countries.

3) Entertainers--we've got tons of actor/actress/singer/model lists of credits, some current, some celebrities of the past. A huge number of these are backed up by IMDB listings, but some people don't accept that as an acceptable source and therefore consider the entire article bogus--a huge leap in magnitude. By not accepting IMDB, its a pain to find other sources with as complete credits--funny how that works out. Yes, some of these contain extra fluff, promotional materials written by the artist or publicist. There are plenty of referenced articles with the same kind of fluff, planted better in media sources. The ones I have checked out back up the important items, the ones that are significant enough to qualify them for notability, listed in anybody's IMDB pretty well.

4) Academics--with writings and research documented within their circles. If you can find any sourcing, its usually from the university they work at, bios that are reprints from the resumes. Who could know how legit that stuff is?

Fitting in and around this stuff are other people who have done things like written a book (probably covered under 3 or 4); been a hero, victim, perpetrator or visible witness/journalist to an important event. The important message that seems to be missing here is a lopsided percentage of these articles are innocuous and factual if somebody would just take the time to look for the sources. That takes time, labor and knowledge of the subject. These aren't problems. Out of fear of the few bad apples, we have people here diverting our resources, our time and labor, to fixing these non-problems.Trackinfo (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples and Evidence

This conversation seems abstract to me. Many editors have requested numbers regarding the two topics of BLPs and deletionism. However, I have yet to see anyone provide concrete quantitative evidence or examples in these conversations. I've attempted to start this, below, and put them on one line to save space and added a count - if you think this is helpful, please update the count with your examples. Another issue is why they were deleted (notability or other), and whether it was speedy or not, but I don't know how to integrate that here. Can anyone suggest a better way of collecting this data and doing analysis, or has this already been done? Perhaps we should restrict this dataset to BLPs here? -kslays (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering part of my own question: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/BLP has a big list in reference to the Jan 400 deletions. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced dangerous or problematic BLPs

These BLPs may be (or may have been) dangerous to Wikipedia due to legal (defamation) or other concerns.

• 4 articles: John Seigenthaler, Walter Sedlmayr, Mark Grebner, Daniel Brandt (Wikipedia Watch)

Deleted articles that you personally miss (BLPs in bold)

List articles here that you wish weren't deleted or that you feel put off new editors.

• 2 articles: Doomsday Called Off([11]),MyBB([12])

Previously deleted articles which you feel may have bitten new editors (BLPs in bold)

• 10 articles: CyanogenMod, War of Legends, Wokai, Samuel Abraham Marx, Kickfire, Laboratory Of Neuro Imaging (which I believe was deleted as LONI),IMSLP([13]),CONLANG([14]), Joel Hedgpeth, Erin O'Brien (writer)([15]); plus this list from the "rescue squadron" that Okip listed earlier.

BLP sourcing speed

cumulative outstanding BLPs minus BLPs sourced

A fictional chart with MADE UP numbers to demonstrate

Regarding how fast ureferenced BLPs are added and how quickly the backlog is being brought down, we have CAT:BLP, but I couldn't find numbers to put into a nice line graph. Envision a chart with number of unreferenced BLPs on Y, month on X, and four lines: new BLPs created (new unreferenced BLP tags added), BLPs sourced (tags removed), BLPs deleted, and total outstanding unreferenced BLPs (which now stands at about 40k). I looked through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people, and CatScan doesn't have a date range option. I created a chart with only one line, "outstanding BLPs - BLPs sourced" from CAT:BLP, but I cannot derive any of the four lines (except for the current month) I'd want that could better inform policy decisions. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. If you think this has already been hashed out in "phase I how many articles?" thoroughly, feel free to delete this BLP sourcing speed section to unclutter the discussion.

This is all very nice and probably took quite some effort to prepare, but IMHO it doesn't move the discussioin along. maybe a look at the talk page will help understand why some of the most serious contributors are now abandoning this whole project. If that's what is wanted, consensuses and decisions will be made by a rag-tag bunch of whoever's left - and based on experience, that would certainly and most probably not be a decision that would reflect what we might have wanted as a majority..--Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, didn't take more than a few minutes, but I just wanted to see if anyone had an easy source for the numbers, so an easier decision could be made regarding the backlog, but okay, I see your point. Thanks for the response. -kslays (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact is, kslays, that your graphics would have probably attracted more attention on the talk page, because that is where the real details appear to be being hacked out.

However, far too few of the posters to this RfC page are taking any notice at all of what is being said on the talk page, and vice versa, and both pages have now become a hopeless entangled mess because they are attempting to discuss four related, but entirely separate BLP issues in one RfC. Anyone joining that talk page now, would have to pretty much read through the whole ot, and that takes about 2 hours. The last few sections are mainly about the talk page itself, and are possibly the most poignant.--Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start?

Please see the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people‎#Fresh start? discussion on the talk page. This is just a notice, please place any comments there. Maurreen (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweeping the waves back into the ocean - misleading indicators

We badly need some reliable metrics and other measures of the community's effort to source BLPs. Yesterday the unsourced BLP count was 40,929, I alone sourced 15-20, the count was then about 40,900 as far as I remember - but right now, it has climbed back to 40,914. The present metrics indicate that we just try to sweep the waves back into the ocean, it's a Sisyfos task; its utterly demoralizing, and it may be misinterpreted (or abused) as "evidence" that nothing is being done. The steady increase shown in the graph above merely shows the level of bot-tagging activity, in particular during 2009, its really only the more recent time series that is interesting. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead wasting time with debate most editors could have source 1-20 articles. We waste so much effort on debates, and then punish content creators with permanent-AFD system. Kasaalan (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: AFD-deleted pages should be kept accessable for a month for established users who likes to improve for another AFD review. Kasaalan (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats the problem with starting at the wrong place and concentrating on the wrong metric. The unsourced BLP count increases when new unsourced BLPs are added, but it also increases when people categorise and tag old articles from years ago that met the standards of the time but are now considered by some to be a problem. If we agree to stop accepting new unsourced BLPs, then once we've got that working the unsourced BLP category will only increase in months when we find and tag more old ones than we delete or untag. But it is still the wrong thing to prioritise if we want to improve BLPs, not least because concentrating on that metric distracts us from more serious BLP problems such as unsourced BLPs that have yet to be identified as such, and other problem areas; For example since the BLP deletionism spree in January the unpatrolled articles at Special:NewPages has increased sharply and now goes back 22 days to the 12th Feb, in an hour spent there you are liable to find more vandalism than an hour spent going through old unsourced BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.