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

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)

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)

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 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?"

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)

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)

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 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. 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)

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 []. (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...  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. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) 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.

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 0 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 . There's also the lab for you to try . 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)

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(),MyBB()

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(),CONLANG(), Joel Hedgpeth, Erin O'Brien (writer)(); plus this list from the "rescue squadron" that Okip listed earlier.

BLP sourcing speed

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)

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)