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

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

votes or percentages

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

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

Moan

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

Table

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

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

hatted Fritzpoll (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this just a continuation of phase I?

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

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

Well, Phase I did narrow things down into three specific areas. I assume that other people will contribute their suggestions for the other two, and alternatives to my position on the third. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should name it without your name, simply put which proposal you are talking about. Okip (formerly Ikip) 02:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee's proposal is in the wrong subsection

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

I moved it. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Poor set up

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

I think at least the conclusion on the PROD process is clear enough. This should be done, I think, at Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs, adapting that draft proposal in whatever way people want. There is some question of whether it should be standalone or part of WP:PROD; based on discussion at WT:PROD I think separate process will be preferred, but this can be discussed later (merging it as as a special part of PROD if desired). The rest of the discussion is clearly separate; it's how quickly to use the new process (and supplements), and what to do specifically about newly created unsourced BLPs. There is a focus and structure here that there wasn't in the first RFC (but this doesn't prevent someone creating a new section Other or Stuff We've Missed). Rd232 ^talk 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think BM refers to things like Jclemens' proposal which were not part of phase I but are new to this RFC (a proposal like that was rejected at WT:CSD before though). It might be a good idea to only allow proposals that are based on phase I proposals and which had consensus (i.e. no "delete them all" proposal since that was rejected with a huge majority). Currently the page looks like a mix of different ideas, some based on previous proposals, some new and some outsourced to other pages. I, too, have to say that I think that the page currently looks a bit chaotic and needs some order. Regards SoWhy 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on the actual proposal page, the most recent CSD discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_37#Add_new_criteria_to_CSD applied to both new and old unsourced ("are totally unsourced for more than a year") articles, and so did MZMcBride's. Jclemmens' proposal is different because it applies only to new articles. That's why I support it, in constrast to the other ones. Pcap ping 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The CSD proposal could be moved to WT:CSD. At least it would be out of the way then; just leave a link here. Rd232 ^talk 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We need a centralized discussion for all the alternatives for dealing with new articles, so the best one can be selected. This is one of the recommendations resulting from phase I. Pcap ping 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My original table (collapsed but expanded yesterday) covered all of the major ideas, and the majority of the minor ones of the First phase of the RFC. The two largest proposals seemed to keep the status quo, and Prod. Instead of voting on these two radically different proposals, maybe their is a middle ground we can all agree upon? that is why Coffee's proposal, which maybe still has some kinks in it, is promising. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• My take on this is that three unanswered questions were left over: How to formulate the BLP-PROD process, what to do with the backlog, and what to do with new unsourced BLPs. I addressed my proposal only to the third of those questions, since I don't have a position I feel like championing for the other two. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is basically what I would like to see... rather than opening up a new array of issues to revote on and have everybody creating new proposals, I think we should set up different area based upon the issues which garnered support initially. For example, IMHO, I see two main areas where consensus has evolved:

Issue 1: In round one of this RfC, while there is a strong component of the community opposed to wholesale deletions of unsourced BLPs, there was a general agreement that there should be some sort of clean up of unsourced BLPs. Failure to clean up these BLPs may lead to their deletion. As such, the question becomes how we proceed with this clean up? Who should be notified? How? What time frame do we use when deleting the old unsourced BLPs? How do we prioritize these old unsourced BLPs? How do we identify the unsourced BLPs? What do we do with older unsourced BLPs not identified during the clean up phase? What articles fall under this umbrella (E.g. not all BLPs are biographies and the non-biographies are likely to be overlooked or identified later.)

Issue 2: In round two of this RfC, there was a clear consensus that some sort of BLP-PROD mechanism be developed. There was also a clear indicator that this BLP-PROD should not be used as an end-around to justify speedy deletions of unsourced BLPs. This leads to several issues needing to be discussed: A) Who can and under what circumstances can a BLP-PROD be added/removed? B) How long we we leave a BLP-PROD on an article? C) How does the creation of BLP-PROD related to Issue 1 (IMO it would be for new articles or older articles identified after the clean up phase has ended.)

There may be other areas, but I think those are the two main umbrellas that have been identified where we should continue working. I would almost propose creating two separate children RFCs to address each of the major umbrellas. The current proposal just feels like beaucracy that is going to simply result in 200 more position statements, but not advancing any concrete conclusions. While some may oppose BLP-PROD and a wholesale clean up, there does seem to be a consensus to do so and this does appear to be the direction ArbCOM, Jimbo Wales and WMF want the project to head. I'd rather we as a community resolve the issue in a meaningful manner rather than await a dictate from on high.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to make the toc solution- rather than user-oriented to start with. If one cannot summarize their proposal in the toc, then it's probably yet another complex one like the first phase had too many of. The "new BLPs" subsection looks good: three orthogonal proposals. The "backlog" section needs work from the authors of the proposals to change the section titles to be more explicit. Pcap ping 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the backlog, the first questions to ask are: should we clean up the backlog?; and how long should we allow ourselves to do this?. The first I think has been answered - most feel that it should be cleaned up. The second is important, as it feeds into what methods we should use. If we can agree on a timescale, then we are one step closer to a solution. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Instead, we should consider incentives to source these articles, to paraphrase User:The-Pope (whose idea was #44 in phase I):

Make it known that this is the site's current main priority...get WolterBot to change the order of the cleanup list to highlight what are the real problem areas, and which ones are "nice-to-haves" (i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style [problems]).

Get ALL of the projects on board. Get a bot...to auto-generate the lists based on the intersection of Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:WikiProject XYZ articles. [The bot will need to be smart because] the project [categories] are on the talk pages, but the unreferenced BLPs are on the main pages. [I personally] can do it for a project at a time using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, so it [is possible]. Then create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Unreferenced BLPs page for EVERY project. Update the list daily.

Hold a competition to see who can zero their list the quickest - winner gets money/fame/links on the main page for a month/etc.

Create a hall of fame for most removed each week.

ALL wikiprojects have a User:WolterBot page added.

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

BLP PROD tag

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

The emphasis need to be on adding sources, and we should provide links so that it's a bit easier to find them. We have to mention deletion as the result of ignoring the tag, but that it not a foregone conclusion. We should also emphasize that the tag does not reflect any perceived lack of notability of the subject. I saw someone had produced a tag somewhere. I'll try and find it. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think we'll be able to work this out. No one wants the tag to be bitey, and obviously we need to include links to pages that help with sourcing while pointing out that the article will eventually be deleted if it isn't sourced. It might be nice to set up a central page somewhere (maybe there's one already) where article creators who are new contributors could go ask for help and which would be patrolled by experienced editors, and include the link to that page in our standard message. I actually think we can word the tag such that we draw in more new users to editing than we push away. A lot of people create one or two articles and then never come back and/or never figure out how article sourcing and other Wikiways really work, simply because no one ever "talks" to them beyond a boilerplate "welcome" message. But if we're saying "hey, thanks for this, but you need to fix this up a bit and here's how," we might end up with a chunk of those folks becoming more familiar with our policies (because they have to in order for their article to stay) and deciding to stick around. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing prod tag:

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. Please do not add the {{hangon}} tag to challenge a proposed deletion unless the article has also been nominated for speedy deletion.

The article may be deleted without further notice since this message has remained in place for seven days.

This template was added

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added.

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

A word from the forgotten majority

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

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

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

So has anyone done any actual article editing?

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

A good question, even if it was rhetorical, so here's one answer. I was never the most prolific editor, but I've hardly contributed anything to article space since this matter arose. This isn't a protest or an attempt to punish anyone; I simply don't feel like doing work which may vanish. If the deletions restart, I'll probably continue to edit but am unlikely to work on BLPs again. I genuinely wish you well in finding other contributors to fill the gap. Certes (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The longest lists of people's actual edits leading to removal of BLPunsourced tags are on User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing. There are some impressive counts there. My own 21 (so far) "rescues" are not listed. Yes, some people do put their keyboards where their mouths are. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've continued to handle PRODs, where >50% are BLP-relevant, through the established processes while all this hoopla goes on. I've only ever really worked on one BLP, myself. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never been involved with BLPs before, but the discussion has prompted me to improve a few, usually by using already-present External Links to provide inline references where this is possible. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How to meaningfully contribute to such a large discussion

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

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

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

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

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

This has potential. Maurreen (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great way to encourage more editors to express an opinion without having to digest pages of debate. A clear winner as long as the survey reaches the right audience. Certes (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Table uncollapsed and restored

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

Conversation about phase II

Bfigura 19:58, 26 January 2010: "I agree that this is getting tl;dr, but perhaps the approach is to wait another day or two until this has been open for a week, then ask someone to close this and post a summary detailing the major points that seem to have most of the support. Then this could be closed, and we could have a more focused discussion of the top 'x' choices" Rd232 20:28, 26 January 2010: Someone will need to summarise and break out the main proposals (taking particular care with overlaps); ideally no more than 3 or 4 proposals should be listed in Part II of the RFC. Proposals should be flexible, by theme or type of idea, rather than Person X's proposal, Person Y's proposal etc; and Part II should focus on choosing a type of proposal, rather than choosing between fully fledged ready-to-implement proposals. Aymatth2 21:29, 26 January 2010: I would not try to restrict it to just three or four proposals, and would not ignore views expressed in the less active sections. There are many ideas that may be useful. Some policy or process changes could be implemented independently. It will be harder to get consensus if they are packaged together and presented as alternatives. Bfigura 21:37, 26 January 2010: I think it's better to detail all the main points from all ends of the spectrum, rather than attempt to only go for the ones with the most support. From looking at this, I imagine the summary would look something like a spectrum + a bit mentioning that people seem to be raising a few general ideas Fritzpoll 12:37, 27 January 2010: the best thing is to shut down this one and condense the current ideas that are not simply status quo into a new page to discuss. Bfigura 16:47, 27 January 2010: simply a format switch so that this actually becomes parsable. Bfigura 16:53, 27 January 2010 this be summarized so that the community can actually parse and comment on the thing without having to try and read a 1MB page. I hope that's ok. Bfigura 17:16, 27 January 2010 And while everyone is a unique and precious snowflake, not all of those sections are going to be equally important when it comes to implementing something:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest:

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

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

Planning for Phase 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any point to contributing?

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

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

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

that's a function of interest among people presently at Wikipedia who know how to deal with disam and categories, not RW notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I do think that articles that are not linked to very much, or not very well integrated into the encyclopedia are somewhat neglected, and can be considered obscure, and that can lead to thoughts of "should they really have an article". It all comes back to maintainability. Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

another Proposal for solving the problem

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

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

Woot.--Father Goose (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Moving unfavorable facts

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

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

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

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

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

Okip ^{BLP Contest} 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Close this manufactured RFC immediately

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please close this RFC now. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"I would put this to a !vote, but MZMBride's "secret mailing list", have made a complete mockery of our consensus building system." Okip ^{BLP Contest} 04:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where was it said that there were 25+ members? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I *think* what the OP was referring to was this. No comment on the rest of the section right now.  –Whitehorse1 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is no relationship at all between the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee to the community to hold this RFC and anything you have stated above, Okip. Further, there is no reasonable correlation between the Arbitration Committee case involving MZMcBride and the participation of 470+ Wikipedians in this discussion. This RFC is not in any way a "reward" for MZMcBride, whose opinion did not receive the consensus support of the community. Risker (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Proposal: Close this thread immediately. Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I second the motion to table this thread. harej 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Risker: The initiator of this RFC has a "secret mailing list" "dedicated to tightening up BLP practices". MZMcBride recruited a blocked editor to conduct a breaching experiment to "vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information" MZMcBride "secret mailing list", if I recall, has 25-30 members. Coffee, whose wheel warring led up to this RFC, has defended this "secret mailing list", and has not responded on whether he was a member, he is also the administrator who protected this RFC.
    Risker, as far as Phase II, even Mr.Z-man acknowledges only one position was advocated in Phase II. As the administrator who closed this RFC, why was only one position advocated, in complete contradiction to the reasons agreed upon to close this RFC? Okip ^{BLP Contest} 05:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm obviously not Risker, but you need to present proof of MZ stating or somebody confirming that there is some sort of sekrit mailing list. I followed the arbcom case, and there was no mention of a mailing list, and I haven't seen evidence elsewhere. Personally, I feel like the phrase "put up or shut up" might be appropriate now, since you've stated this alleged mailing list as if it were fact, several times on this page. Killiondude (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Former arbitrator Casliber: "In October while I was told about this website as a place where concerned editors were discussing what to do about BLPs, and that the board was private and pseudonyms were being used, and that there were a number of people using it (24?)." The website is Sofixit.org, which was replaced with a highly offensive porn photo when former arbitrator Casliber went public in December, and is now labeled as a forum "For discussing the sensitive issues regarding Wikipedia's biographies of living people."[6] Okip ^{BLP Contest} 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, I see. You're confusing two terms: mailing list and message board. It is starting to make more sense, but it's still not quite clear why you think that an RFC with over 470 distinct editors discussing a topic should be completely ignored. It's unfathomable. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • You made assumptions that the mailing list does not exist, you rudely tell me to "put up or shut up" and when I show you incontrovertibly that the mailing list does exist, you change the focus of the discussion. Does "put up or shut up" apply to the editor who was shown to be completely wrong? Okip ^{BLP Contest} 08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Assuming a secret mailing list doesn't exist is probably the default choice. Also, the thing Casliber brought up isn't a mailing list, it is a message board (allegedly). I'm not changing the topic, I'm agreeing with Risker in that "there is no relationship at all between the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee to the community to hold this RFC and anything you have stated above", as far as I can tell. Killiondude (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
              • To clarify, yes it was a message board, but viewing was/is prohibited unless one is a member, hence it functions as a private mailing list although it is/was structured asa message board. Anyway, I agree with sentiment elsewhere about trying to look forward rather than backwards and moving on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip, do not continue to use my comment in support of your claims. You are taking it of context, and you know that. Please remove your reference to my comment, as I do not agree with you except on a purely factual basis. I agreed that phase 2 only covered one aspect, but I disagreed that it was a problem and argued that continuing the huge number of discussions in phase one would not have been helpful. Your comments here are beyond the pale. You have yet to address my reply above, where I pointed out a blatant lie in your attack on me. You are now alleging, based on no evidence that MZM and 25 other users are using sockpuppets to vandalize BLPs. How you got from "using a forum to discuss BLPs" to "creating sockpuppets to vandalize" I have no idea, but you have yet to present any evidence to back up your major claims. The incident referred to on the Arbitration case was a completely different situation. The forum being referred to there was Wikipedia Review, not the BLP forum. And MZM did not vandalize any BLPs himself. Only one banned user did, on a handful of articles. You have taken a few isolated incidents, mixed them together, blown it out of proportion,and concocted a conspiracy theory. Somehow you've turned "a forum to discuss BLP", "a banned user vandalizing a handful of BLPs," and "MZM starting an RFC" into "25 users on a secret mailing list are using sockpuppets to vandalize BLPs to manufacture a crisis and subvert consensus." You've basically turned 3 things that are true into 1 thing that is completely false. Giving a banned user a list of articles did not happen on a secret BLP forum, it happened on a public WR forum. The banned user's vandalism was minor, limited, and I believe in most cases was self-reverted. You're accusing several long-standing editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism. Please either present real evidence or retract your claims. Mr.Z-man 06:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote:

• only one position is advocated - Yes, because simply starting all the discussions over again would have been so productive. I fail to see how that isn't significantly different from any other targeted RFC, except that we're calling it "Phase 2" instead of starting a new RFC. Nothing is stopping people from starting their own RFC if they disagree with this one.

Per above: "I agreed that phase 2 only covered one aspect" You are welcome to add "but", I now quoted you fully in context. I can post the entire section here if you wish.

RE: "The banned user's vandalism was minor, limited, and I believe in most cases was self-reverted."

Why do you continue to defend desyped MZMcBride who "gave this list to [a banned user] knowing that...the introduction of inaccurate information into these articles—even if done by K. inconspicuously and without malice—could have unpredictable real life consequences"?

How do you reconcile your continued fervent defense of MZMcBride, who helped introduce "inaccurate information" with your continued concern about "inaccurate information" (what you support calling "sewers") on Wikipedia? Are you a member of this "secret mailing list"?Okip ^{BLP Contest} 06:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're only quoting me fully in context right here; you're still using my comment out of context as something in support of your position, when it is most definitely not. Why do you continue to throw about allegations, attacks, and lies rather than reasoned arguments and evidence? I'm not defending MZM except against the attacks that are purely a figment of your imagination. Yes, I'm well aware that he provided a banned user with a list of unwatched BLPs. However, you have yet to present evidence that this "secret mailing list" is coordinating anything, let alone "manufacturing" a crisis. Perhaps you had your head in the sand until people started suggesting deleting unsourced BLPs, but BLPs have been a problem on Wikipedia for years. The instance of a banned user vandalizing 10 or so BLPs had little to no impact on the RFC (see Risker's comment above). OTRS gets around that many complaints about BLPs every day. Mr.Z-man 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPs have been a problem on Wikipedia for years?

1. Does this include edits done by blocked users in "breached experiments"? Would you consider these a "problem"? How do you reconcile your defense of MZMcBride, who helped introduce "inaccurate information" with your continued concern about "inaccurate information" (what you support calling "sewers") on Wikipedia?

"OTRS gets around that many complaints about BLPs every day."

2. Do any of these complaints include the "breached experiments" which you are justifying?

Since you seem to know so much about what happened around the "secret mailing list", are you a member of this "secret mailing list"? Okip ^{BLP Contest} 08:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there have been no complaints regarding the breaching experiment. I am not justifying anything and like all the lies you are telling here, you know that. All that I'm saying is that MZM did not create any sockpuppets, the vandalism done was short-lived and minor, it had no bearing on the creation of this RFC (how many people other than yourself have mentioned it in their proposals and comments - outside of replies to you?) and almost all of the "facts" that you are claiming are false.

Where have I expressed any knowledge of the "secret mailing list"? All I did was clarify somethings that happened elsewhere (the interaction between MZM and a banned user took place on a widely known public forum, not a secret mailing list as you continue to allege), which if you had spent 10 minutes reading over the Arb case you keep quoting, you would already know. Is it really that difficult for you to make a comment that does not contain some sort of attack or allegation? Mr.Z-man 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from user:Okip:

== Your posts about MZMcBride ==

Your constant posts about how MZMcBride manufactured this BLP crisis and is now trying to deceive the entire community into doing something or another is bordering on harassment. Please stop. NW (Talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is deeply troubling that established editors, who are held up as role models for the community, continue to defend the indefensible,

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

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

Lets keep the comments here please, all comments about this on my talk page will be subsequently moved here. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 06:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip, this motion is not going to succeed, and pursuing it is not going produce anything useful. Yes, MZMcBride has acted in a grossly inappropriate manner in relation to BLPs, but you're not going to get this RfC invalidated on that basis. Refocus on some initiative that has a chance of improving the situation.--Father Goose (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The silly drama needs to stop. Ridernyc (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Move forward, no back tracking, no delaying action. MZMcBride ArbCom case is even anterior to all the unsourced BLP discussion and wrestling. Okip do you really want a compromise or you simply do not want one rejecting the negotiation failure and blame to the other side. There is a reality check: Unsourced BLP issue will be resolved once for all and this is not a negotiable change. You can oppose the change and get ditched on the road side or you can contribute to the discussion on how the change will occur in other words ride the wind of change. I'm sick of the Wikipedia indecisiveness and the "I don't want the other side winning" mentality. A real good compromise is everyone and Wikipedia winning but at this rate no one winning and Wikipedia losing is still a possible outcome. --KrebMarkt 10:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found that strong statements like "this is not a negotiable change", are usually always made when negotiations are about to collapse.

You can't reach consensus when editors repeatably show they have "utter contempt" for "community consensus". As Mr.Z-man acknowledges, only one position was advocated in step II. Those of us who were ignored in Step II, a good portion of the 470, simply want a fair process. If this is really something you want too, I would suggest giving less ultimatums, and focus more on why so many editors are so frustrated at what is happening here.

If there really was community support for what you are advocating KrebMarkt, there would have been no need for "breach experiments" (vandalism); the deletion of hundreds of articles, and stopping the RFC early to advocate one position. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 11:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly all i can do is laughing out of bitterness, you should change your set of arguments because it's turning into a scratched disk playing always the same tune Ad nauseam. The ArbCom motion was adamant on the point that the unsourced BLP issue must be resolved and all you read was the part related to editors who started the whole party. The first RFC was just a warm up round with both side assessing the other side strength and the result is both side are evenly matched. So we are at negotiating for real and this time ArbCom will pick the solutions that will solve the issue and gathered the most support. You can exclude yourself from that process but that will not stop it. As a negotiator, you are wasting the strength represented by the overwhelming consensus to not have unsourced BLP nuked. Use it the wrestle a good compromise and not for entrenchment tactic. The whole negotiation can continue without you and against you. Your support and participation is not mandatory to reach a good compromise. --KrebMarkt 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment about this by Fritzpoll

A number of points need to be clarified here:

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

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

I agree to the extent that because the RfC is flawed due to the wikigaming and bad faith of those bringing it, any attempt to divine consensus from it is also flawed and we may need a do-over. If that creates mess and drama, the only people to blame are those trying to undermine the process in the first place. I think consensus could still be found in an orderly process, but trying to bully the community to action is not going to work. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• We categorically do not need a "do-over." And when some members of the community are more content to maintain the status quo than to actually fix the problem, then it is time to nudge those members toward action. Calling these nudges "bullying" is more than a bit silly. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the wiki-gaming that Okip refers to - not one shred of evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of secret collusion by the individuals supporting this drive. All we have is the result of one recently closed Arbcom case, which had nothing to do with this RfC or the events that brought it about - it muddies the waters, and I don't see how it is productive to wipe everything out and start again because of a single set of inaccurate statements. If anyone has any evidence of the secret collusion, they can post it here, or forward it to myself or arbcom-l, and we will deal with it. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)No one execpt Okip or Wikidemon does. But anyone who tries to tell him otherwise gets attacked and accused of being a member of the "secret mailing list" or he just lets it "calm down" and stops replying when he realizes that he's been caught in a lie (see the "dangerous precedents" and "About libel" sections). Mr.Z-man 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked you whether you were a member of the "secret mailing list", you could simply responded "no". I do not know who the 24 members are of this "secret mailing list", Durova said she was given names, and she wanted confirmation, every time I ask editors who seem to know a lot about this "secret mailing list" they refuse to answer, just as MZMcBride avoiding answering straight forward questions repeatedly.[7][8]

You stated that my comments were harassment, and yet, you call my comments a "lie".

"or he just lets it "calm down" and stops replying when he realizes that he's been caught in a lie"

This is a common debate tactic, listed on many websites, if an editor does not get the answer, or immediately answer to your satisfaction you claim that the editor is being elusive. Which is ironic, because I have asked you twice some very pointed questions, which you have not answered either. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 18:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point I doubt the community is going to tolerate any more acting out. We should discount the opinions voiced here by MZMcBride and any known socks they have enabled. This does cast some doubt on the whole process. However, the discussion continues and I don't think their particular proposals are among those with the most support anyway. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

MZM has not created any socks. Please provide some evidence for your allegations, or retract them. Mr.Z-man 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to defend an dysoped administrator who vandalizes unreferenced BLPs by proxy? If you are so concerned about unreferenced BLPs, isn't it logical to assume you would be concerned about this vandalism?

Why do you continue to play the definition game, as MZMcBride did?[9] Yes, technically MZMcBride did not have any socks, but he gave information to an indefinitely banned user to sock puppet.

"MZMcBride gave this list to K. despite knowing, or at least reasonably suspecting, that (i) K. intended to use it to edit the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets and that (ii) K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorised to edit the English Wikipedia for any purpose at all." Why do you continue to defend such behavior Mr.Z-man?

Please be careful, because you are judged by the company you keep. When you want to advance in wikipedia, editors will look back on this conversation and say "Mr.Z-man defended the actions of a dysoped administrator and his banned sockpuppet who vandalized wikipedia". Okip ^{BLP Contest} 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it is you who needs to be more careful about tossing around unfounded accusations of sock-puppetry, and about issuing not-so-vague "I'll remember this and hold it against you down the road" threats. Involve yourself more with the topic matter of BLP articles and how to help the process along, and involve yourself less with your perceptions and misconceptions of other editors. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip: Rather then harping on the (admittedly sordid) history in this area, I'd suggest continuing to attempt to find a solution which you and the other side of the issue can live with. There's too much water underneath the bridge to suddenly claim a do-over.. As I said before, running out the clock is not an option. I think a reminder to be more collegial is needed in this discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TARC true or false, did a banned user, supported by MZMcBride, create vandalism on wikipedia.[10]

Defending and burying vandalism of BLPs does not help the process along, does it? Okip ^{BLP Contest} 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

False. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I guess it is your word against a unanimous arbitration committee. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We have started a process here with broad support and agreement on the goal, if not the specifics, of cleaning up the backlog of unsourced BLPs. I don't think there's much support for stopping it or rolling back the clock for a do-over. And whatever we do, it's going to take some more discussion to narrow this down into some proposals to approve and implement. So for the most part I think SirFozzie's right, it's water under the bridge. My observation is just that it casts a cloud on how much consensus we can find in the discussion to date, upon realizing that not everyone participating was doing so on the up-and-up. We haven't finished the discussion anyway, so it might just mean we're 55% of the way there instead of 65% as people had hoped. Let's go forward, and just agree that there shouldn't be any more funny stuff. It's a collaboration project so let's collaborate. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Wikidemon. Now is the time for collaboration, for coming up with a process we can execute without too much trouble and strife, and for ensuring it is one that is at least satisfactory to as many folk as possible. But a do-over would be a very bad thing. I'd rather not return to the status quo ante. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Fritzpoll

1. Actions perpetrated by MZMcBride did not lead to this RfC - the motion regarding mass deletions by Kevin, Scott MacDonald and others did.

   Are Kevin, Scott MacDonald, Coffee and Lar members of sofix.org? A website which MZMcBride ran?

2. MZMcBride has not been admonished for "running a secret mailing list" or even from a secret forum - I should know, I read the publicly made statements! This a misrepresentation that is categorically false.

   MZMcBride has never been admonished for "running a secret mailing list". I never claimed that, and if I did, I will retract it. The "secret mailing list" exists, sofix.org, this was what was privately reported to the administrators in October 2009, it was only on December 23, 2009 when former arbcom member Casliber made this list public, after the arbitration committee, to my knowledge, did nothing. The arbitration committee continues to tacitly support this "secret mailing list", stating that they can do nothing. And yet the creator of this "secret mailing list" creates this RFC, and they give their blessing, and refuse to even entertain the possibility that there is no connection between the "secret mailing list", meat-puppetry, and canvassing.

3. The outcome of the MZMcBride motion has no bearing on the propriety of these proceedings - if it had done, Arbcom would have made a finding to that effect

   MZMcBride enlisted a banned sock puppet to conduct vandalism on Biographies of living people,

   "The context strongly suggests that K. would subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to then; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results. According to K., even as MZMcBride handed over the list to him, MZMcBride expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion."

   MZMcBride the creator of this RFC, is creating the very crisis he wants new rules for.

   MZMcBride has a "secret mailing list", "The context strongly suggests" this "secret mailing list" is being used for meat-puppetry, and canvassing.

4. Disregarding a sizeable portion of the community who commented at the original RfC on the basis that one editor has been sanctioned seems rude to those concerned

   Tacitly supporting meat-puppetry, and canvassing by not investigating seems negligent. Do you know the names of this "secret mailing list" Fritzpoll? Do they include Kevin, Scott MacDonald, Coffee and Lar?

5. Invalidating the RfC would mean invalidating all of it and returning to the apparent ambiguity post-Arbcom motion. If the RfC is flawed, as claimed, then all opinions and all possible consensuses arising from it cannot be said to have been found. That includes proposals from all sides of the discussions.

   I addressed the mishandling of the phase II above. At what point are the results so tainted by "secret mailing list", sock puppet vandalism, etc. that the ends no longer justify means.

   If there was community consensus for these changes, editors would not have to go to such dirty means to get their desired end result. Your tacit support of such behavior is troubling.

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

I shall respond in turn:

1. I have no idea and neither do you - you are making an accusation that these editors, in otherwise good standing, are in violation of several of our policies. Making such accusations without evidence is disruptive. Either provide your evidence against these editors, or retract your accusations - repeating them again without evidence will be viewed dimly
2. Quote from you above "The creator of this Request for Comment, MZMcBride, just lost his administrator privileges, for running a "secret mailing list" "dedicated to tightening up BLP practices" - I look forward to your retraction of this inaccurate statement, per your offer. He lost them for supplying details to a banned user on a publicly viewable forum. Please stop calling sofixit.org a "mailing list" - a website forum is not a mailing list, and it's very confusing to work out what you are talking about. I do not have the details of this website's contents. If you do, please forward them to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because barring this site's existence I have no information about it. Are you suggesting we sanction someone for simply owning a website, without evidence of on-wiki impropriety resulting? I sincerely hope not.
3. You are conflating two separate things - this RfC was born out of the deletions problem, not vandalism by the banned user. Since MZM's view has been rejected in the RfC, I fail to see why his opinions or statements matter to you.
4. I have dealt with this above. I know nothing of the contents of this website. Nor do you, apparently - if you do, then forward it to arbcom-l. Otherwise, I fail to see what exactly it is you want us to do about an off-wiki private website whose contents are secret.
5. Given that you and I have no knowledge of the contents of this website, I can only conclude that you are making suppositions as to the motivation of the editors who you are accusing. I see no evidence of collusion, I see no evidence of sockpuppetry in this RfC (which is the only kind that is relevant in the here and now).

Your rhetoric here seems to be an effort to derail this RfC by accusing several editors in good standing, including an Ombudsman for the Wikimedia Foundation, of violating core policies. You do so without any evidence, beyond pointing to something that you know nothing about and saying "they could be doing stuff in there...". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and supposition is not evidence. Back up your claims immediately, or retract them Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving sections of discussion without consensus or notification.

From User talk:Ikip

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

You removed both the old moved section, and the new section I created here, without consensus or notification. As described above, I discuss how you have followed consensus in forming phase II. Please do not bury this discussion again. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ay caramba! What's all this about and why does it make any difference? You normally don't need to get consensus first before a bold attempt to organize a discussion, but if people object best leave it how it was. I can't figure out why it makes any difference which particular page hosts a particular thread though... we can all find it either way. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And as an appeal, this whole "secret mailing list" and sockpuppeting thing isn't directly related to this RfC so can we please wind that down? I've already gone out on a limb about as far as I'm going to go to say that it might cast a little light on the discussion, but it's pretty indirect. If there is a process or behavior problem to take care of, could we please deal with that in some other place? I don't think we can do anything about it here, and it's distracting us from concentrating on the issue of BLPs. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Separating issues

Proposal -- Discuss behavioral issues elsewhere.

Support

1. Maurreen (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral