Mass-deletion of unwatched, unsourced BLPs, It's happening :) Options

[Alison]

Mayhem ensues as the mass-deletion of unwatched, unsourced BLPs gets underway, thanks to the enigmatic* Rdm2376 (T-C-L-K-R-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

For more drama, plus much tearing out of (each other's) hair, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions



(* - yes, it's User:Kevin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) )

[MBisanz]

Mayhem ensues as the mass-deletion of unwatched, unsourced BLPs gets underway, thanks to the enigmatic* Rdm2376 (T-C-L-K-R-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

For more drama, plus much tearing out of (each other's) hair, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions



(* - yes, it's User:Kevin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) )

I was already balding before this thread thank you very much.

[Milton Roe]

Mayhem ensues as the mass-deletion of unwatched, unsourced BLPs gets underway, thanks to the enigmatic* Rdm2376 (T-C-L-K-R-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

For more drama, plus much tearing out of (each other's) hair, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions



(* - yes, it's User:Kevin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) )

Exchange of the day:

Was there a discussion of this somewhere already? (On-wiki or off-wiki?) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? --NeilN talk to me 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review. Careful, I've been told it's an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, no community discussion? --NeilN talk to me 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure there was community discussion. Perhaps not the community you're thinking of? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute. You should know that the only community discussion that means anything involves the Wikipedia community. --NeilN talk to me 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

So...how does this discussion turn out?

A. Kevin is desysopped
B. All articles are script-undeleted
C. The thread dies and nothing more happens for a couple months, whereupon the mess starts again
D. Some combination of the above
E. Progress actually gets made.

Is it too cynical to say that the most likely thing to happen is a mixture of A and B?

[Rhindle]

I'm actually quite encouraged by the discussion there. You've been here long enough to know that the "community" could not find consensus on what day of the week it is, let alone the legitimacy of something important like this. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't someone supposed to by this person a drink now?

[MBisanz]

I'm actually quite encouraged by the discussion there. You've been here long enough to know that the "community" could not find consensus on what day of the week it is, let alone the legitimacy of something important like this. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't someone supposed to by this person a drink now?

I believe Kelly Martin made that promise.

[Somey]

Isn't someone supposed to by this person a drink now?

Maybe we could send him an Applebee's gift card, from the "emergency fund"?

I checked some of these names on Bing and Google, and many of them appear to be complete non-entities - "Summer Abunaja," for example, seems to exist only in the form of a Facebook page, members-only. "Massimo Citi" is a little more substantial, but all the "ghits" in English are scrapes, and the only non-scrape I found in the first few pages of results was this forum which has no posts in it whatsoever. He has a blog, but it's in Italian.

It looks like they lose nothing by deleting these articles except a potential ongoing maintenance headache, in the unlikely event that someone were to actually read one of them.

[Milton Roe]

Isn't someone supposed to by this person a drink now?

Maybe we could send him an Applebee's gift card, from the "emergency fund"?

I checked some of these names on Bing and Google, and many of them appear to be complete non-entities - "Summer Abunaja," for example, seems to exist only in the form of a Facebook page, members-only. "Massimo Citi" is a little more substantial, but all the "ghits" in English are scrapes, and the only non-scrape I found in the first few pages of results was this forum which has no posts in it whatsoever. He has a blog, but it's in Italian.

It looks like they lose nothing by deleting these articles except a potential ongoing maintenance headache, in the unlikely event that someone were to actually read one of them.

That doesn't keep some of these people from revealing that they actually have hoarding disorder.

You know those crazy cat ladies who end up in a house filled to the brim with sorted plastic milk containers, tin cans, newspapers, filled catboxes, folded catfood bags, dead rodents, and whatnot, with several feet of paper and catshit underneath? I've seen one of these with my own eyes. In a 3400 sq ft house, the lady was finally reduced to sleeping in one small place near the door, as everyplace else was impassable, or at least not something you dared lay on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) It had taken 30 years. She was the original owner.

Well, it's not just crazy old cat ladies. There's some of these people on Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Condemnation and cat trapping leads to much whining. But WP is the Augean stables by comparison.

Kevin, we have another pile over here.....

[Kevin]

Mayhem ensues as the mass-deletion of unwatched, unsourced BLPs gets underway, thanks to the enigmatic* Rdm2376 (T-C-L-K-R-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

For more drama, plus much tearing out of (each other's) hair, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions



(* - yes, it's User:Kevin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) )

I was already balding before this thread thank you very much.

I'm also the owner of a shiny dome, much to the amusement of my children, who caused it in the first place.

[Somey]

Well, it's not just crazy old cat ladies. There's some of these people on Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

If you simply replaced the word "animal" with "article" in the WP article on Animal hoarding (T-H-L-K-D), you'd have yourself a completely valid WP article:

Article hoarding involves keeping higher than usual numbers of articles as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability.

My rule is that the number of cats should never exceed {square footage of home}/20, so if you live in a home with only 1,000 square feet, you should have no more than 5 cats, though personally I prefer to just have one, two at the most.

Most people would still call me "crazy," regardless.

I'm also the owner of a shiny dome, much to the amusement of my children, who caused it in the first place.

Well, perhaps it serves you right for giving them all electric razors and cans of depilatory cream for Christmas?

Anyway, I like the cut of your jib, Mr. Kevin. You've got moxy, no question about it! Based on what I've seen, I figure they'll probably tolerate you on WP for maybe 4 or 5 more days, 10 tops.

[Alison]

Can we maybe get more admins involved to do the dirty-work? It's not fair that Spartacus Kevin has to do it all ....

Ooh - cool WikiProject idea (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[gomi]

So...how does this discussion turn out?

A. Kevin is desysopped
B. All articles are script-undeleted
C. The thread dies and nothing more happens for a couple months, whereupon the mess starts again
D. Some combination of the above
E. Progress actually gets made.

Is it too cynical to say that the most likely thing to happen is a mixture of A and B?

Sadly, you may be right, but there might be enough momentum to keep a precipitate reaction from happening too quickly. In my observation, opposition to anything new or interesting on WP tends to build for 24-48 hours, then, barring new developments, decays along something like an inverse square law. If no actual countervailing action gets taken during that period, the action has a chance of holding.

This, of course, presumes ArbCom doesn't take it up: they're the undead zombies of drama-mongering.

[The Joy]

So...how does this discussion turn out?

A. Kevin is desysopped
B. All articles are script-undeleted
C. The thread dies and nothing more happens for a couple months, whereupon the mess starts again
D. Some combination of the above
E. Progress actually gets made.

Is it too cynical to say that the most likely thing to happen is a mixture of A and B?

Sadly, you may be right, but there might be enough momentum to keep a precipitate reaction from happening too quickly. In my observation, opposition to anything new or interesting on WP tends to build for 24-48 hours, then, barring new developments, decays along something like an inverse square law. If no actual countervailing action gets taken during that period, the action has a chance of holding.

This, of course, presumes ArbCom doesn't take it up: they're the undead zombies of drama-mongering.

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[gomi]

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sooooo predictable! At this point, assuming Kevin doesn't wish to go down in the flames of wiki-martyrdom, the ideal solution would be for other admins (I'm looking at you Alison, MzM, MBisanz, NW, and others) to take up the cudgel and start deleting them as well. They could desysop Kevin, but they would never desysop six or seven admins all doing the same thing. Perhaps we'll get a real count of the cahones de laton out there!

[Milton Roe]

Well, it's not just crazy old cat ladies. There's some of these people on Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

If you simply replaced the word "animal" with "article" in the WP article on Animal hoarding (T-H-L-K-D), you'd have yourself a completely valid WP article:

Article hoarding involves keeping higher than usual numbers of articles as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability.

Exactly. Same disorder, different name. These are the people you see on Animal Cops. Animals "rescued" to straight to pound where they are euthanized. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Viewers pretend not to know this.

My rule is that the number of cats should never exceed {square footage of home}/20, so if you live in a home with only 1,000 square feet, you should have no more than 5 cats, though personally I prefer to just have one, two at the most.

I have many, many more (exact number 5th ammendment (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)). Way outside zoning code However, they are diffused through the house, under the house, in the garage, about the yard under bushes and behind fences, and (in good weather) on roofs. Neighbors don't know they exist, except for the few that collect in the front yard at around the time I'm due home, waiting for homecoming treat (which serves as roll call).

It's not hoarding. It's just that after years of cat rescue, you tend to accumulate what one can politely term "clinkers" that are unadoptable. Feral cats. Cats with chronic nose discharge. The lame, the halt, the half-blind. The black. A cat with a cleft palate, one eye, and a sneer that is is damned ugly, and stinks of anaerobes. Sweet cat, though.

I'm saved by the fact that they're all spayed and neutered, so they don't proliferate. I know them all. They also get the best food and good vet care (I do most myself), so they're in good shape, save for the unfixable problems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) I've had most of them for years. In a quiet neighborhood with little traffic and no coyotes, they last and last, alas, alas.

They trigger and ride my Roomba. They bang the door when they want in. They come to me and demand me to turn on the sink. They make things move in the house like I have poletergeists. They ignore the dogs and the dogs ignore them.

They're mostly no problem save for hair and litterbox granules that Roomba takes care of. House is clean. Litter boxes are necessary both inside the house and out, but that's 20 minutes a day. Dry catfood bills are relatively small even with the best brands-- I spend the most money on canned food treats for roll call and the few cats with few teeth.

Waking up in the AM with four cats on you and as many on your spouse is a common experience during cold nights (where I am that's 40 F, enough to make southwestern wusspusses fluff up like porcupines). And these are the socialized ones.

I have a passion for plants, animals, biology. Coral reefs are heaven. Yard is jungle; wouldn't have it any other way.

The animal hoarders are sad. You can find 40-50 animals, in all kinds of poor shape. Blind, sometimes feral, disease ridden, sometimes malnourished, having kittens that die, pneumonia. House has so much ammonia your eyes water. Inbreeding problems. You do what you can, triage, Haitian style. But it's better than the pound would do, especially in these times.

Did you know they're a "hoarders' anonymous?" Volunteers, they go to hoarder homes, help, and ease the psych shock. Most of these hoarder people are NOT schizophrenic. The lady I talked to had been a banker, and is totally compos mentis. Located all her financial and loan documents, no probable, as easily as I would have. She just doen't "see" the problem. Or didn't until they foreclosed on her. She may beat the deadine yet, with a bit of help from a losely organized anarchic relief effort.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm actually quite encouraged by the discussion there. You've been here long enough to know that the "community" could not find consensus on what day of the week it is, let alone the legitimacy of something important like this. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't someone supposed to by this person a drink now?

Offer remains good, but the individual will have to (a) convince me of his bona fides and (b) come to me in person to collect it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Kevin]

So...how does this discussion turn out?

A. Kevin is desysopped
B. All articles are script-undeleted
C. The thread dies and nothing more happens for a couple months, whereupon the mess starts again
D. Some combination of the above
E. Progress actually gets made.

Is it too cynical to say that the most likely thing to happen is a mixture of A and B?

Sadly, you may be right, but there might be enough momentum to keep a precipitate reaction from happening too quickly. In my observation, opposition to anything new or interesting on WP tends to build for 24-48 hours, then, barring new developments, decays along something like an inverse square law. If no actual countervailing action gets taken during that period, the action has a chance of holding.

This, of course, presumes ArbCom doesn't take it up: they're the undead zombies of drama-mongering.

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

So long as we see some of E I don't care too much. I think B is in progress now but so long as sources are added it's a net plus. Whatever, the sequel starts tomorrow am (my time).

[Viridae]

Well, it's not just crazy old cat ladies. There's some of these people on Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

If you simply replaced the word "animal" with "article" in the WP article on Animal hoarding (T-H-L-K-D), you'd have yourself a completely valid WP article:

Article hoarding involves keeping higher than usual numbers of articles as pets without having the ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability.

Exactly. Same disorder, different name. These are the people you see on Animal Cops. Animals "rescued" to straight to pound where they are euthanized. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Viewers pretend not to know this.

My rule is that the number of cats should never exceed {square footage of home}/20, so if you live in a home with only 1,000 square feet, you should have no more than 5 cats, though personally I prefer to just have one, two at the most.

I have many, many more (exact number 5th ammendment (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)). Way outside zoning code However, they are diffused through the house, under the house, in the garage, about the yard under bushes and behind fences, and (in good weather) on roofs. Neighbors don't know they exist, except for the few that collect in the front yard at around the time I'm due home, waiting for homecoming treat (which serves as roll call).

It's not hoarding. It's just that after years of cat rescue, you tend to accumulate what one can politely term "clinkers" that are unadoptable. Feral cats. Cats with chronic nose discharge. The lame, the halt, the half-blind. The black. A cat with a cleft palate, one eye, and a sneer that is is damned ugly, and stinks of anaerobes. Sweet cat, though.

I'm saved by the fact that they're all spayed and neutered, so they don't proliferate. I know them all. They also get the best food and good vet care (I do most myself), so they're in good shape, save for the unfixable problems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) I've had most of them for years. In a quiet neighborhood with little traffic and no coyotes, they last and last, alas, alas.

They trigger and ride my Roomba. They bang the door when they want in. They come to me and demand me to turn on the sink. They make things move in the house like I have poletergeists. They ignore the dogs and the dogs ignore them.

They're mostly no problem save for hair and litterbox granules that Roomba takes care of. House is clean. Litter boxes are necessary both inside the house and out, but that's 20 minutes a day. Dry catfood bills are relatively small even with the best brands-- I spend the most money on canned food treats for roll call and the few cats with few teeth.

Waking up in the AM with four cats on you and as many on your spouse is a common experience during cold nights (where I am that's 40 F, enough to make southwestern wusspusses fluff up like porcupines). And these are the socialized ones.

I have a passion for plants, animals, biology. Coral reefs are heaven. Yard is jungle; wouldn't have it any other way.

The animal hoarders are sad. You can find 40-50 animals, in all kinds of poor shape. Blind, sometimes feral, disease ridden, sometimes malnourished, having kittens that die, pneumonia. House has so much ammonia your eyes water. Inbreeding problems. You do what you can, triage, Haitian style. But it's better than the pound would do, especially in these times.

Did you know they're a "hoarders' anonymous?" Volunteers, they go to hoarder homes, help, and ease the psych shock. Most of these hoarder people are NOT schizophrenic. The lady I talked to had been a banker, and is totally compos mentis. Located all her financial and loan documents, no probable, as easily as I would have. She just doen't "see" the problem. Or didn't until they foreclosed on her. She may beat the deadine yet, with a bit of help from a losely organized anarchic relief effort.

I like cats, possibly more than dogs - though I waver each way. That said, I have grown up with Burmese cats. People who have had both say that once you have had Burmese nothing else is quite the same. (British style mind you) Two kittens at hom at the moment, absolute terrors.

[radek]

So...how does this discussion turn out?

A. Kevin is desysopped
B. All articles are script-undeleted
C. The thread dies and nothing more happens for a couple months, whereupon the mess starts again
D. Some combination of the above
E. Progress actually gets made.

Is it too cynical to say that the most likely thing to happen is a mixture of A and B?

Ummm, how about some common sense here? People are getting "pointy" all over the place, from the initial experiment to the over reaction by some admins and arbs. And then everyone starts mainlinin' the drama (and yes WR folks like their drama as much as the rest).

So The Kosher identified a very significant problem and attempted (or threatened) a very dramatic way of making it known. He was ... "facilitated" in that endeavor by one of Wikipedia Review's regulars. And then folks took sides. And now it's about who's going to get banned or whether there'll be an ArbCom case or policy this or policy that. It's more important whether some faction wins or looses or some Wiki-enemy or Wiki-friend is in trouble, then whether the actual articles get sourced (if they should be) or deleted (if needed). And Kevin went and tried to do something about which was perhaps drastic, perhaps useful but ... definitely pointy. Very very pointy.
... the poor unsourced and unwatched BLPs have become a simple political football in all this. Take some of the effort you've put into the debate and look up some sources instead.

I know people've taken this as an opportunity to rag on Roger in all this, but somewhere along this line I think he's the only person who made a practical suggestion; to start a Project or a task force that will actually tackle those 50,000 articles. Hand out barnstars, give kudos, make sourcing BLPs a noteworthy recognized endeavor on Wiki. Make it "chain gang labor" for topic banned users who want to work off some time (a totally self serving suggestion). That kind of BLP project just needs a bit of initiative and a few Wiki-celebrities (like perhaps an arbcom or two) and soon you'll have all the wanna-be admin kids doing it for that little bit of Wikipedia street cred that looks good in their RfAs. It's for the wrong reasons, but the outcome's right.

You need both in a way. But let's see some initiative from the "this can be handled with existing procedures" upstanding Wikipedia folks now ... start the "let's source these mothers or delete them where appropriate" project.

[dogbiscuit]

So...how does this discussion turn out?

A. Kevin is desysopped
B. All articles are script-undeleted
C. The thread dies and nothing more happens for a couple months, whereupon the mess starts again
D. Some combination of the above
E. Progress actually gets made.

Is it too cynical to say that the most likely thing to happen is a mixture of A and B?

Ummm, how about some common sense here? People are getting "pointy" all over the place, from the initial experiment to the over reaction by some admins and arbs. And then everyone starts mainlinin' the drama (and yes WR folks like their drama as much as the rest).

So The Kosher identified a very significant problem and attempted (or threatened) a very dramatic way of making it known. He was ... "facilitated" in that endeavor by one of Wikipedia Review's regulars. And then folks took sides. And now it's about who's going to get banned or whether there'll be an ArbCom case or policy this or policy that. It's more important whether some faction wins or looses or some Wiki-enemy or Wiki-friend is in trouble, then whether the actual articles get sourced (if they should be) or deleted (if needed). And Kevin went and tried to do something about which was perhaps drastic, perhaps useful but ... definitely pointy. Very very pointy.
... the poor unsourced and unwatched BLPs have become a simple political football in all this. Take some of the effort you've put into the debate and look up some sources instead.

I know people've taken this as an opportunity to rag on Roger in all this, but somewhere along this line I think he's the only person who made a practical suggestion; to start a Project or a task force that will actually tackle those 50,000 articles. Hand out barnstars, give kudos, make sourcing BLPs a noteworthy recognized endeavor on Wiki. Make it "chain gang labor" for topic banned users who want to work off some time (a totally self serving suggestion). That kind of BLP project just needs a bit of initiative and a few Wiki-celebrities (like perhaps an arbcom or two) and soon you'll have all the wanna-be admin kids doing it for that little bit of Wikipedia street cred that looks good in their RfAs. It's for the wrong reasons, but the outcome's right.

You need both in a way. But let's see some initiative from the "this can be handled with existing procedures" upstanding Wikipedia folks now ... start the "let's source these mothers or delete them where appropriate" project.

As a fine example of not getting the point, that was a great answer.

If Wikipedia was a functional, well managed project, it would have identified the problem many moons ago and evolved a means of dealing with it.

Bleating about the wrong people going about doing it wrong, when the problem has existed for some time and could have been resolved, simply fails to grasp the fundamental problem: Wikipedia has no functional management system capable of resolving its own problems.

I think it is a wonderful testimony that the hated and dysfunctional WR is the source of good ideas to fix things on Wikipedia. Sort of tells you something is missing in the project somewhere - and I don't think it is some software to provide a discussion forum, it is attitude and insight - something that Wikipedia has the wrong sort of the former and as a community completely lacks the latter.

Get thee back to the project, Satan.

[Jon Awbrey]

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif)
(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

Don't you people ever sleep?

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[MBisanz]

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sooooo predictable! At this point, assuming Kevin doesn't wish to go down in the flames of wiki-martyrdom, the ideal solution would be for other admins (I'm looking at you Alison, MzM, MBisanz, NW, and others) to take up the cudgel and start deleting them as well. They could desysop Kevin, but they would never desysop six or seven admins all doing the same thing. Perhaps we'll get a real count of the cahones de laton out there!

I did take up the cudgel, on my own, with protecting Sarah Palin, remember? And I got slapped around for it. No, I'll wait for the eventual arb case (against Kevin for deletion, against someone else for restoring the articles or blocking him) to see which way things will tip and then decide what to do.

[thekohser]

So The Kosher identified a very significant problem...

Sign #26 that you may be a Wikipediot:

You think my screen name is "The Kosher".

[Sarcasticidealist]

Sign #26 that you may be a Wikipediot:

You think my screen name is "The Kosher".

You're such a ham, Greg.

[A Horse With No Name]

I was already balding before this thread thank you very much.

I'm also the owner of a shiny dome, much to the amusement of my children, who caused it in the first place.

Well, you chrome-dome characters are wasting your hairless time here. Let's get Alison in Deborah Kerr's dress and one of you in Yul Brynner's red robes (let's have Kevin as the King and MBisanz as his understudy):



This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[anthony]

Was there a discussion of this somewhere already? (On-wiki or off-wiki?) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? --NeilN talk to me 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review. Careful, I've been told it's an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, no community discussion? --NeilN talk to me 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure there was community discussion. Perhaps not the community you're thinking of? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute. You should know that the only community discussion that means anything involves the Wikipedia community. --NeilN talk to me 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN must not realize that Wikipedia Review basically is the Wikipedia community. In fact, there's probably a higher percentage of non-kool-aid-drinkers there than there is here.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[SB_Johnny]

Was there a discussion of this somewhere already? (On-wiki or off-wiki?) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? --NeilN talk to me 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review. Careful, I've been told it's an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, no community discussion? --NeilN talk to me 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure there was community discussion. Perhaps not the community you're thinking of? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute. You should know that the only community discussion that means anything involves the Wikipedia community. --NeilN talk to me 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN must not realize that Wikipedia Review basically is the Wikipedia community. In fact, there's probably a higher percentage of non-kool-aid-drinkers there than there is here.

Kool aid makes people louder, as any parent can attest.

[NuclearWarfare]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...oposed_deletion

"Yes, because "being unreferenced" has no correlation whatsover with "being problematic". --Cyclopiatalk 15:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC) "

"Makes sense, though I still say there is no backlog, and despite the fuss people make about it, this isn't necessarily the Most Important Thing.--Kotniski (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC) "

"So... essentially, what I'm hearing between the lines (somewhere, not just you) is that you are pointing to the general disclaimer. That could probably be the strongest argument here... Let me start a new section... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)"

"I have seen zero evidence of major BLP problems. Ridernyc (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)"

Why do we even bother?

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[Apathetic]

He didn't really get too far, did he?

[Milton Roe]

I was already balding before this thread thank you very much.

I'm also the owner of a shiny dome, much to the amusement of my children, who caused it in the first place.

Well, you chrome-dome characters are wasting your hairless time here. Let's get Alison in Deborah Kerr's dress and one of you in Yul Brynner's red robes (let's have Kevin as the King and MBisanz as his understudy):

I suggest Anna and the King, with Everyking playing Balat. Ashlee Simpson as Tuptim. Ah, forbidden love. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Of course you know what happens to this pair in the later film.

[radek]

As a fine example of not getting the point, that was a great answer.

If Wikipedia was a functional, well managed project, it would have identified the problem many moons ago and evolved a means of dealing with it.

Bleating about the wrong people going about doing it wrong, when the problem has existed for some time and could have been resolved, simply fails to grasp the fundamental problem: Wikipedia has no functional management system capable of resolving its own problems.

I think it is a wonderful testimony that the hated and dysfunctional WR is the source of good ideas to fix things on Wikipedia. Sort of tells you something is missing in the project somewhere - and I don't think it is some software to provide a discussion forum, it is attitude and insight - something that Wikipedia has the wrong sort of the former and as a community completely lacks the latter.

Get thee back to the project, Satan.

No, no, I get the point. Wikipedia sucks in many ways. And WR is or can be a source of good ideas to fix things.

But someone still has to get off their ass and fix those BLPs (and yes that's what Kevin was doing - the point is that more people should've tried something as well, and been less pointy about it).

So The Kosher identified a very significant problem...

Sign #26 that you may be a Wikipediot:

You think my screen name is "The Kosher".

Ah whatever. Have fun being petty.

[Cedric]

So The Kosher identified a very significant problem...

Sign #26 that you may be a Wikipediot:

You think my screen name is "The Kosher".

Ah whatever. Have fun being petty.

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/rebbe_pic.jpg)

"Says you! There's nothing petty about being kosher!"

[Tarc]

But someone still has to get off their ass and fix those BLPs (and yes that's what Kevin was doing - the point is that more people should've tried something as well, and been less pointy about it).

It's beyond the point of fixing now. Clean the slate, start fresh if the subjects are indeed notable, and source right from the outset. Leaving crap around waiting for the slackjawed retards that comprise the vaunted "Article Rescue Squadron" to get around to them, someday, should not be an option on the table.

[Milton Roe]

He didn't really get too far, did he?

There was a third option besides being blocked or having his fingers fall off. No fire, no ice, the world just ends in paperwork and argument.

[Kelly Martin]

He didn't really get too far, did he?

There was a third option besides being blocked or having his fingers fall off. No fire, no ice, the world just ends in paperwork and argument.

Actually I suspect after six months of arguing and posturing eventually a quasiconsensus will emerge and most, but not all, such articles will be deleted and new policy written. However, Kevin's personal career as a Wikipedia admin is effectively over; he will be hounded by the enemies he's made until he gives up, which I predict will happen within a year.

Wikipedia policy only advances when someone pulls off a visibly dramatic stunt like this, and usually the stuntpuller must sacrifice himself or herself for the cause. At least Kevin will (hopefully) be able tosleep better knowing that he probably bettered the world for thousands of marginally notable individuals.

[MBisanz]

He didn't really get too far, did he?

There was a third option besides being blocked or having his fingers fall off. No fire, no ice, the world just ends in paperwork and argument.

To be fair, it takes one mouse click to initiate a batch delete, so his fingers wouldn't have fallen off. His internet connection might have timed out, but his fingers were safe I think.

[thekohser]

Ah whatever. Have fun being petty.

Yeah, whatever yourself, Radek. In your spare time, check out the five -- count 'em -- five recent threads that I started in the BLP forum. Your encyclopedia is a failure. Always has been, and always will.

[Nerd]

Your encyclopedia is a failure. Always has been, and always will.

Then why do you insist on hanging around if you hate it so much?

However, Kevin's personal career as a Wikipedia admin is effectively over; he will be hounded by the enemies he's made until he gives up, which I predict will happen within a year.

He's already given up the bit multiple times in little huffs. This would be nothing new.

[radek]

Ah whatever. Have fun being petty.

Yeah, whatever yourself, Radek. In your spare time, check out the five -- count 'em -- five recent threads that I started in the BLP forum. Your encyclopedia is a failure. Always has been, and always will.

Look, I don't disagree with you in that this is a serious problem and you get kudos for making other peoples notice. But getting prissy about the fact that I misspelled your name is in fact petty. If I got my panties in a bunch every time my name got misspelled...

[tarantino]

Of course if you're a notable Wikipedia member and an unsourced biography about you is introduced, it will be deleted as vandalism without a fuss by one of the hundreds of administrators who've "got your back".

Luckily it had a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License attached to it and will live on for eternity in places such as http://www.wikiwak.com/wak/Ira_Matetsky .

[Milton Roe]

Ah whatever. Have fun being petty.

Yeah, whatever yourself, Radek. In your spare time, check out the five -- count 'em -- five recent threads that I started in the BLP forum. Your encyclopedia is a failure. Always has been, and always will.

Look, I don't disagree with you in that this is a serious problem and you get kudos for making other peoples notice. But getting prissy about the fact that I misspelled your name is in fact petty. If I got my panties in a bunch every time my name got misspelled...

Anybody who calls himself "The Kohser" is absolutely begging for a misspelling, even if it does relate to his name.

[Nerd]

Anybody who calls himself "The Kohser" is absolutely begging for a misspelling, even if it does relate to his name.

Yes, I agree. This is why it is best to choose a name that people are able to spell easily, without mixing letters up. For example, "Nerd" is one that is so simple that victim of censorship could probably manage to spell it without making any mistakes.

Not that criticizing people's spelling/grammar is a good way to argue a point, quite a weak one in fact.

[thekohser]

Then why do you insist on hanging around if you hate it so much?

I came for a non-profit encyclopedia project. I stayed for the mockery, once I saw that there is no non-profit encyclopedia stuff going on, just hypocrisy.

Sorry if mockery of hypocrites entertains me, but at least I don't do drugs, and I don't watch much reality TV.

[Jon Awbrey]

Then why do you insist on hanging around if you hate it so much?

I came for a non-profit encyclopedia project. I stayed for the mockery, once I saw that there is no non-profit encyclopedia stuff going on, just hypocrisy.

Sorry if mockery of hypocrites entertains me, but at least I don't do drugs, and I don't watch much reality TV.

You couldn't watch much "Reality TV" without doing drugs …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

I've still got a sysop bit I'm willing to lose. Anyone want to point me at a list of long-term, unreferenced BLPs?

[Kevin]

I've still got a sysop bit I'm willing to lose. Anyone want to point me at a list of long-term, unreferenced BLPs?

Glad I'm not the only one. There is a short list at User:Rdm2376/Unwatched

I've been prevented from continuing - blocked by Geni

[tarantino]

I've still got a sysop bit I'm willing to lose. Anyone want to point me at a list of long-term, unreferenced BLPs?

Category:Unreferenced BLPs

[privatemusings]

I've been prevented from continuing - blocked by Geni

expired now, no? - /me has his cup of tea and is trying to figure out what's happening. Was a bit busy here this morning - worth a little look if you're up for a smile ;-)

[dogbiscuit]

I think this already has the makings of a nice little press story. Put it together with Greg's comments on the WMF grand plan, it does rather make the management of Wikipedia look something of a liability. Where's WR's PR officer when you need him?

[Milton Roe]

I've been prevented from continuing - blocked by Geni

expired now, no? - /me has his cup of tea and is trying to figure out what's happening. Was a bit busy here this morning - worth a little look if you're up for a smile ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User%3ARdm2376

Unsupported by policy? Amazing. I thought the reactionary's problem was precisely that it WAS explicitly supported by policy. Alas, though, they WP:DIDNTLIKEIT.

[Kevin]

I've been prevented from continuing - blocked by Geni

expired now, no? - /me has his cup of tea and is trying to figure out what's happening. Was a bit busy here this morning - worth a little look if you're up for a smile ;-)

Role account, and a sock clearly involved in meta drama, doesn't that equate to an indef block? Not that it will ever be used again.

[tarantino]

Bearcat (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who first began participating at Wikipedia in 2003, has 225 unreferenced biographies to his credit. I guess he's there to build something, but it's clearly not an encyclopedia because they use references.

I wonder why he has deleted all of his talk page content prior to 29 August 2009? That's not a very transparent thing for an administrator to do.

[pablo]

I really can't see what the rush is - the more delay, the more of these people will die, and then BLP won't apply ...

[NuclearWarfare]

I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling or not.

[Cla68]

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sooooo predictable! At this point, assuming Kevin doesn't wish to go down in the flames of wiki-martyrdom, the ideal solution would be for other admins (I'm looking at you Alison, MzM, MBisanz, NW, and others) to take up the cudgel and start deleting them as well. They could desysop Kevin, but they would never desysop six or seven admins all doing the same thing. Perhaps we'll get a real count of the cahones de laton out there!

Gomi is right.

[Milton Roe]

I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling or not.

Which reminds me: it's been a couple of weeks since McBride did his initial numbers. That's long enough that if we run it again, we may be able to get a prelimary feel for how fast the problem is growing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Useful info. I'm sure these BLPs are created faster than these young sports figures die. The question is, HOW MUCH FASTER?

And overall, I'd like to know how fast BLPs grow. But I can watch that myself from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_people

As for this moment, Jan 20, 2009, it's 429,383.
Total English articles is 3,166,415.

Perhaps some kindly admin can post the total number from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UnwatchedPages here. Surely the gross number itself, free of info on specific pages, is not a secret.

[NuclearWarfare]

The following information is cached, and was last updated 14:03, 19 January 2010.

Discuss this special page at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages.

See also: Specialpageslist with editable versions.

There are no results for this report.

Yeah...don't know what's with that.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[Lar]

Perhaps some kindly admin can post the total number from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UnwatchedPages here. Surely the gross number itself, free of info on specific pages, is not a secret.

Zero.

That's what I got when I ran it anyway.

[Apathetic]

The following information is cached, and was last updated 14:03, 19 January 2010.

Discuss this special page at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages.

See also: Specialpageslist with editable versions.

There are no results for this report.

Yeah...don't know what's with that.

User:Trulyequal1, undisclosed arbsock extraordinaire strikes again?

I don't know about you, but I get in trouble with wifey when I just sweep stuff under the carpet.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[MBisanz]

Perhaps some kindly admin can post the total number from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UnwatchedPages here. Surely the gross number itself, free of info on specific pages, is not a secret.

Zero.

That's what I got when I ran it anyway.

Right, it is broken cause it is so long it is meaningless. Remember there are 17,000,000 pages on enwiki and around 5,000 highly active editors; that is a lot of pages per editor.

[Doc glasgow]

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sooooo predictable! At this point, assuming Kevin doesn't wish to go down in the flames of wiki-martyrdom, the ideal solution would be for other admins (I'm looking at you Alison, MzM, MBisanz, NW, and others) to take up the cudgel and start deleting them as well. They could desysop Kevin, but they would never desysop six or seven admins all doing the same thing. Perhaps we'll get a real count of the cahones de laton out there!

Gomi is right.

Well, I just deleted over 130 BLPs , all unreferenced for over three years.

Bored now, someone else's turn.

[The Joy]

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The fools!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

[MookieZ]

Well, I just deleted over 130 BLPs , all unreferenced for over three years.

Bored now, someone else's turn.

This is the first time I've ever wanted to be an admin.

So, who's going to step up next? There's been many admins at WR talking about BLPs, here's the chance to finally take some real action.

[Kelly Martin]

Unsupported by policy? Amazing. I thought the reactionary's problem was precisely that it WAS explicitly supported by policy. Alas, though, they WP:DIDNTLIKEIT.

Remember that anything anyone might do is always simultaneously prohibited, permitted, and required by Wikipedia policy, all at the same time.

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

That would involve doing work without reward. At least now doing the work gives them the reward of being able to use the resulting product to put someone else in the doghouse.

Seriously, people, what do you think motivates these people to do things on Wikipedia? It ain't a belief that "creating an encyclopedia" is a noble venture that they contribute to out of a love of mankind.

[Doc glasgow]

* This is obvious use of admin powers to override community consensus. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he nailed it.

When the community consensus has less maturity than a toddler on acid and the ethical responsibility of the average clinically certified sociopath, then the only responsible thing for an admin to do is to disregard it with the utmost contempt.


But why do I think they'll desysop me and elect Apoc2400 arbcom?

I hereby give notice that I intend to delete any BLP without references for over a year whenever I can be bothered. If requested I will not stop, if blocked I will restart when it expires.

[Cla68]

GeorgeWilliamHerbert is asking for at least 2 days for a consensus to emerge on these deletions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=338906273

This looks like its going to be a fail then. George will likely block Kevin if he does not comply. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sooooo predictable! At this point, assuming Kevin doesn't wish to go down in the flames of wiki-martyrdom, the ideal solution would be for other admins (I'm looking at you Alison, MzM, MBisanz, NW, and others) to take up the cudgel and start deleting them as well. They could desysop Kevin, but they would never desysop six or seven admins all doing the same thing. Perhaps we'll get a real count of the cahones de laton out there!

Gomi is right.

Well, I just deleted over 130 BLPs , all unreferenced for over three years.

Bored now, someone else's turn.

Good work.

Well, I tried to help out in a small way.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[MZMcBride]

I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling or not.

Which reminds me: it's been a couple of weeks since McBride did his initial numbers. That's long enough that if we run it again, we may be able to get a prelimary feel for how fast the problem is growing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Useful info. I'm sure these BLPs are created faster than these young sports figures die. The question is, HOW MUCH FASTER?

And overall, I'd like to know how fast BLPs grow. But I can watch that myself from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_people

As for this moment, Jan 20, 2009, it's 429,383.
Total English articles is 3,166,415.

Perhaps some kindly admin can post the total number from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UnwatchedPages here. Surely the gross number itself, free of info on specific pages, is not a secret.

Why hello!

Special:UnwatchedPages has been broken for ages.

Here are the numbers I have, just now generated from the Toolserver:

• Pages (redirects and non-redirects) in the article namespace: 7,194,441
• Non-redirects in the article namespace: 3,194,018
• Redirects in the article namespace: 4,000,423
• Unwatched (0 watchers) pages (redirects and non-redirects) in the article namespace: 2,724,248
• Unwatched (0 watchers) redirects in the article namespace: 2,238,781
• Unwatched (0 watchers) non-redirects in the article namespace: 485,467
• Pages (redirects and non-redirects) in the article namespace that are in "Category:Living people": 428,741
• Non-redirects in the article namespace that are in "Category:Living people": 428,494
• Redirects in the article namespace that are in "Category:Living people": 247
• Unwatched (0 watchers) non-redirects in the article namespace that are in "Category:Living people": 50,124

Note: The 50,124 figure (obviously) does not include the approximately 8,000 biographies that were added to the watchlist of the Arbitrator-controlled "Trulyequal1" account.

[taiwopanfob]

Bored now, someone else's turn.

Well, you could post your password here and everyone could take a whack at it ... but then Lar would block it on "marginal improvement to the wiki" grounds. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (And I'm just kidding, of course -- about the password, not Lar!)

Are there any throttles at Wikipedia when it comes to editing, deleting, etc? Given a decent link, it would not take much time at all to kill those 58k unreferenced articles. Does Wikipedia expose a web-service for the various editor and admin functions? (A google brings up nothing interesting.)

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[MZMcBride]

Bored now, someone else's turn.

Well, you could post your password here and everyone could take a whack at it ... but then Lar would block it on "marginal improvement to the wiki" grounds. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (And I'm just kidding, of course.)

Are there any throttles at Wikipedia when it comes to editing, deleting, etc? Given a decent link, it would not take much time at all to kill those 58k unreferenced articles. Does Wikipedia expose a web-service for the various editor and admin functions? (A google brings up nothing interesting.)

Nearly all of the limits in the software make an exception for administrators. The only violations of this rule that I can think of off-hand are "bigdelete," which prevents administrators from deleting pages with approximately over 5,000 revisions and a hack placed on the English Wikipedia to prevent deletion of the Main Page (which a clever administrator can easily get around).

There are no throttles to the number of deletions that an administrator can perform (I believe my record is somewhere around 140 in a minute).

In order to maximize efficiency when performing actions (whether they're edits, deletions, or whatever else), there is a beautiful API provided by MediaWiki.

[Doc glasgow]

Bored now, someone else's turn.

Well, you could post your password here and everyone could take a whack at it ... but then Lar would block it on "marginal improvement to the wiki" grounds. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (And I'm just kidding, of course -- about the password, not Lar!)

Are there any throttles at Wikipedia when it comes to editing, deleting, etc? Given a decent link, it would not take much time at all to kill those 58k unreferenced articles. Does Wikipedia expose a web-service for the various editor and admin functions? (A google brings up nothing interesting.)

A high proportion in the unreferenced BLP category DO actually have some references.

For the purpose of my spree, I left any article with any reference - that included bad references, imdb and personal websites, but even still.


I am really surprised I have not been blocked yet. I'm still deleting the odd one or two.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[SDJ]

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The fools!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

I am having a discussion at my talkpage with Bwilkins because I opposed his RFA based on the fact that he thought it would be a much better idea to try to fix all of them up instead of just ridding the encyclopedia of them. I can't fathom why it's so hard for some of the WP users to understand why unreferenced BLPs are such a problem. And I will auto-oppose any admin candidate who is on the wrong side of that issue.

[Doc glasgow]

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The fools!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

I am having a discussion at my talkpage with Bwilkins because I opposed his RFA based on the fact that he thought it would be a much better idea to try to fix all of them up instead of just ridding the encyclopedia of them. I can't fathom why it's so hard for some of the WP users to understand why unreferenced BLPs are such a problem. And I will auto-oppose any admin candidate who is on the wrong side of that issue.

The problem is they say "unreferenced BLPs are not the problem", and they are right. It is only 4% of it. Wikipedia will be evil until it deletes all the BLPs it cannot reasonably maintain in quality. Right now that's about 85% of them, with flagged revisions properly used, it would drop to maybe about 70-75% of them - and that's being optimistic.

But as long as Wikipedia thinks it is reasonable to have an unreferenced bio of a fairly not notable person, unwatched and hanging for 3 years there is no hope. They will not accept that their community is not upscaling, and that eventualism is utterly inappropriate for BLPs (and silly anyway - it isn't happening.).

[SDJ]

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The fools!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

I am having a discussion at my talkpage with Bwilkins because I opposed his RFA based on the fact that he thought it would be a much better idea to try to fix all of them up instead of just ridding the encyclopedia of them. I can't fathom why it's so hard for some of the WP users to understand why unreferenced BLPs are such a problem. And I will auto-oppose any admin candidate who is on the wrong side of that issue.

The problem is they say "unreferenced BLPs are not the problem", and they are right. It is only 4% of it. Wikipedia will be evil until it deletes all the BLPs it cannot reasonably maintain in quality. Right now that's about 85% of them, with flagged revisions properly used, it would drop to maybe about 70-75% of them - and that's being optimistic.

But as long as Wikipedia thinks it is reasonable to have an unreferenced bio of a fairly not notable person, unwatched and hanging for 3 years there is no hope. They will not accept that their community is not upscaling, and that eventualism is utterly inappropriate for BLPs (and silly anyway - it isn't happening.).

Oh, I certainly agree on the low-quality BLP problem. I've written a few BLPs during my time there, and I always make certain that I only write what can be reliably sourced. Unfortunately, we have new users (and some not-so-new users) who simply dash off a paragraph or two, save their work, and never look at it again. There should be some way to curb such BLP creation -- I'm thinking that a CSD category citing "unreferenced or poorly-sourced BLP" might do the trick -- as this is a big part of the problem. It's so friggin' easy to create a BLP, assert some sort of notability, and there's no way to get it speedied. There needs to be a big-time policy shift in that regard. CSD is so narrow (as it probably should be for non-BLPs) that it's almost impossible to use on an unsourced BLP.

[The Joy]

At arbitration now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...e#BLP_deletions

[Doc glasgow]

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The fools!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

I am having a discussion at my talkpage with Bwilkins because I opposed his RFA based on the fact that he thought it would be a much better idea to try to fix all of them up instead of just ridding the encyclopedia of them. I can't fathom why it's so hard for some of the WP users to understand why unreferenced BLPs are such a problem. And I will auto-oppose any admin candidate who is on the wrong side of that issue.

The problem is they say "unreferenced BLPs are not the problem", and they are right. It is only 4% of it. Wikipedia will be evil until it deletes all the BLPs it cannot reasonably maintain in quality. Right now that's about 85% of them, with flagged revisions properly used, it would drop to maybe about 70-75% of them - and that's being optimistic.

But as long as Wikipedia thinks it is reasonable to have an unreferenced bio of a fairly not notable person, unwatched and hanging for 3 years there is no hope. They will not accept that their community is not upscaling, and that eventualism is utterly inappropriate for BLPs (and silly anyway - it isn't happening.).

Oh, I certainly agree on the low-quality BLP problem. I've written a few BLPs during my time there, and I always make certain that I only write what can be reliably sourced. Unfortunately, we have new users (and some not-so-new users) who simply dash off a paragraph or two, save their work, and never look at it again. There should be some way to curb such BLP creation -- I'm thinking that a CSD category citing "unreferenced or poorly-sourced BLP" might do the trick -- as this is a big part of the problem. It's so friggin' easy to create a BLP, assert some sort of notability, and there's no way to get it speedied. There needs to be a big-time policy shift in that regard. CSD is so narrow (as it probably should be for non-BLPs) that it's almost impossible to use on an unsourced BLP.

Actually, it isn't the problem.

I can create a perfectly sourced BLP and it can be completely libellous.
You can create a perfecly sourced fair BLP, and someone can add a libel tomorrow.

The problem is that any edit to a BLP needs to be checked, either by people who are familiar with the subject, or by people who will caarefully check the sources are there, are reliable, and say what they are supposed to say. Now, if someone adds information to an A-list celebrity, then that will probably happen, but if we've a bio on some lower-notability person, there's a very good chance it will not. Wikipedia cannot maintain any degree of quality control on any except the most notable BLPs.

If you create a BLP today, no matter how well you source it, it is highly unlikely to be of interest to a critical mass of wikipedians to give it quality control of all edits for all the years it may exist in the future.

Wikipedia simply has to admit it cannot maintain BLPs unless they are in the "highly notable" category.

What they should do is:
1) Ban the creation of new BLPs. It is highly unlikely that anyone currently without an article is going to be notable enough to be maintained. Any exceptions can be created only after discusion on "BLPs for creation".
2) Delete all unreferenced BLPs - or BLPs referenced only to own website or IMDB etc
3) Delete any BLP where there is not an overwhelming consensus that it is notable. (Afd default to delete)
4) Semi-protect all BLPs who are not "A-list"
5) Delete any BLP if a violation of the BLP policy is allowed to stand for over 24 hours - it is obviously unmaintainable.
6) Flag all remaining BLPs.

[Kevin]

At arbitration now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...e#BLP_deletions

Hopefully they won't restrict themselves to the wheel-warring aspect, should the case be accepted.

[SDJ]

@Doc:

The BLPs I have written are on some lesser-figures, but I check them regularly, and I normally recruit a few trusted wikifriends to help me maintain them as well. And I actually have no problem at all with any of your suggestions, as long as lesser BLPs would be allowed if maintained well. One example from my own group of articles is John Koethe. The article was written, and Koethe consulted on a few matters that seemed unclear to me, and his full cooperation in providing images for use in it.

[Milton Roe]

What's infuriating is the "Why delete all these BLP articles when all is needed is a Google search for a reference?" crowd. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Pray tell, why didn't the article creator(s) put the reference(s) in the article in the first place like you are supposed to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The fools!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

I am having a discussion at my talkpage with Bwilkins because I opposed his RFA based on the fact that he thought it would be a much better idea to try to fix all of them up instead of just ridding the encyclopedia of them. I can't fathom why it's so hard for some of the WP users to understand why unreferenced BLPs are such a problem. And I will auto-oppose any admin candidate who is on the wrong side of that issue.

I think I'm going to start doing that! That will get their attention. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[radek]

I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling or not.

Which reminds me: it's been a couple of weeks since McBride did his initial numbers. That's long enough that if we run it again, we may be able to get a prelimary feel for how fast the problem is growing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Useful info. I'm sure these BLPs are created faster than these young sports figures die. The question is, HOW MUCH FASTER?

And overall, I'd like to know how fast BLPs grow. But I can watch that myself from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_people

As for this moment, Jan 20, 2009, it's 429,383.
Total English articles is 3,166,415.

Perhaps some kindly admin can post the total number from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UnwatchedPages here. Surely the gross number itself, free of info on specific pages, is not a secret.

Well, in January 2010 there were 1211 new unsourced BLPs . So it does look like the faucet's bigger than the drain (which has only recently been unplugged. And then plugged. And then unplugged. And then...)

[SDJ]

While I've got some family things going on that I think might be taking up some of my real-world time, I may start dedicating the bulk of my wiki-time to stubbing and PROD-ing the lot of these that Doc, Kevin, et al don't get to with their deletions.

[Doc glasgow]

Statement by Scott MacDonald

Hm, I summarise the complaints: if admins will just play by the rules of consensus, discussion, and take no disruptive unilateral action, then the community consensus will deal with the BLP issues this project faces. That's so ridiculous it is funny. Hasn't happened in my 4 years of caring, and won't happen anytime soon.

This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt. No one should abide by "consensus" when consensus has time and time again shown itself to be as mature as a baby on acid. And this case? Either it will be dismissed or it will strain on the wikilawyering gnats of who blocked whom, and what was out of process - while swallowing every available camel and (to mix metaphors) elephant in the room. Arbcom may "feel the BLP pain" but they won't actually do anything useful.

Actually, even speedy deleting all unreferenced BLPs won't make all that much difference. But the community will not even go that far. Until it starts to do things like this, it will not even begin to tackle the real problem - which is that current structures can only realistically maintain the 20% of most notable BLPs to an acceptable quality wrt to libel threats.

If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholy unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community.

Discussion is really pointless here (been there, bought the t-shirt).

I call on every responsible sysop to start deleting all unreferenced, and badly referenced, BLPs. If consensus stops you doing the morally responsible thing, ignore it. If the "community consensus" dislikes that, then it better ask for some desysoppings - and I volunteer.

I've nothing more to say, and will not be participating in this case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[radek]

Well, I've been reffing some of these unsourced BLPs (it's more work than just a simple google search, trust me) but my own personal frustration is that there's a good number of Polish (and other EE-related) folks on the list, some of them very very notable (for example Kazik Staszewski, one of the most popular musicians in Poland) and deserving of an article that might get deleted - I seriously doubt non-Poles would be able to find or utilize the Polish language sources here. And I can't ref them cuz o' da topic ban.

Hell, I can't even ref Chuck Dukowski (Chuck Dukowski is an unreferenced BLP!!!... actually there's two refs in that article) because of how he chose his name (hint: he ain't Polish) and that's someone that you can find stuff on Google Books for!

[Jon Awbrey]

If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholy unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community.

Point of clarification on the Glaswegian slang —

Are you talking about real grass? … or assho turf?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Shalom]

I applaud the admins who have taken the reasonable position that unsourced BLPs should be deleted. Whether speedy deletion, PROD or a special process is best is unclear to me. Without some thousands of deletions to reduce the exposure of unwatched BLPs, the problem will get worse approaching infinity.

To MzMcBride's stats:
Curiously, my creation of redirects to articles is also about the 4 to 3 ratio of Wikipedia as a whole. I'm responsible for slightly more than 1/1000 of each (as I frequently boast here). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But I'm starting to slip, and I won't hold that title for much longer.

Also, with all the unwatched redirects, it seems to me an abuse filter to log edits to unwatched redirect pages might be a good idea.

[GlassBeadGame]

All this community stuff will only result in more wack-a-mole with the locus of the BLP problem shifting a bit. The answer is to take as much of the decision making away from the community and put it into the hands of people with relevant backgrounds in journalism, history and such. Ten million dollars a year ought to be able to buy a good bit of this kind of thing.

[Doc glasgow]

All this community stuff will only result in more wack-a-mole with the locus of the BLP problem shifting a bit. The answer is to take as much of the decision making away from the community and put it into the hands of people relevant backgrounds in journalism, history and such. Ten million dollars a year ought to be able to buy a good bit of this kind of thing.

Ah well, some asshole blocked me.

[MBisanz]

I applaud the admins who have taken the reasonable position that unsourced BLPs should be deleted. Whether speedy deletion, PROD or a special process is best is unclear to me. Without some thousands of deletions to reduce the exposure of unwatched BLPs, the problem will get worse approaching infinity.

To MzMcBride's stats:
Curiously, my creation of redirects to articles is also about the 4 to 3 ratio of Wikipedia as a whole. I'm responsible for slightly more than 1/1000 of each (as I frequently boast here). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But I'm starting to slip, and I won't hold that title for much longer.

Also, with all the unwatched redirects, it seems to me an abuse filter to log edits to unwatched redirect pages might be a good idea.

It is a problem that many organizations fix. How do you scale up to unimaginable sizes while still ensuring 100% accuracy. Court systems, major corporations, hard disk arrays, etc are all great examples. One of the successful models is using probabilities to determine actions. So determining that unsourced BLPs are the articles are least likely to have sources (that is a tautology), leads to a probability that you can remove the most articles that will never have sources by removing all of those that lack them for some lengthy period of time. This directly conflicts with the original WP concept that deletion is the last resort to be used only after a thorough investigation by several editors at an AFD to prove the non-existence of sources. Of course, the points not made are that if there are sources, then the article can always be re-created later with them and that if people know their articles will be deleted without sourcing, they will include sources at creation, thus improving overall verifiability in the project.

[SDJ]

All this community stuff will only result in more wack-a-mole with the locus of the BLP problem shifting a bit. The answer is to take as much of the decision making away from the community and put it into the hands of people relevant backgrounds in journalism, history and such. Ten million dollars a year ought to be able to buy a good bit of this kind of thing.

Ah well, some asshole blocked me.

I've taken up the gauntlet, the best I can, prodding the lot of the ones that have been unsourced since Dec06.

[The Joy]

All this community stuff will only result in more wack-a-mole with the locus of the BLP problem shifting a bit. The answer is to take as much of the decision making away from the community and put it into the hands of people relevant backgrounds in journalism, history and such. Ten million dollars a year ought to be able to buy a good bit of this kind of thing.

Ah well, some asshole blocked me.

Ah, but it is against "policy" for one to commit seppukku! You will be unblocked and then reblocked by an "uninvolved" administrator.

Why? I don't know. It's all crazy to me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

This directly conflicts with the original WP concept that deletion is the last resort to be used only after a thorough investigation by several editors at an AFD to prove the non-existence of sources.

Really, they just make this stuff up on a minute-by-minute basis, don't they?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

This directly conflicts with the original WP concept that deletion is the last resort to be used only after a thorough investigation by several editors at an AFD to prove the non-existence of sources.

Really, they just make this stuff on a minute-by-minute basis, don't they?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Sadly, they believe it too.

I mean, anyone who asks questions of "scale" and "maintainability" would realise in 5 seconds that this is ridicolicolicoulous.

But the "true believers" are now all over my talk page, telling me I'm spiderman.

I'd rather be spartacus, personally.

[Milton Roe]

All this community stuff will only result in more wack-a-mole with the locus of the BLP problem shifting a bit. The answer is to take as much of the decision making away from the community and put it into the hands of people relevant backgrounds in journalism, history and such. Ten million dollars a year ought to be able to buy a good bit of this kind of thing.

Ah well, some asshole blocked me.

Aha! And before your fingers fell off, too.

My predictions aren't doing too bad.

[MBisanz]

All this community stuff will only result in more wack-a-mole with the locus of the BLP problem shifting a bit. The answer is to take as much of the decision making away from the community and put it into the hands of people relevant backgrounds in journalism, history and such. Ten million dollars a year ought to be able to buy a good bit of this kind of thing.

Ah well, some asshole blocked me.

Aha! And before your fingers fell off, too.

My predictions aren't doing too bad.

:::smashes Milton's fingers:::

It's a single mouse click!

[thekohser]

Considering all of this helpful discussion and activity that MZMcBride and I have brought to the Wikipedia "community" over the past week, don't you all think it's high time that the ArbCom restore the admin bit to Cool3, on condition that Cool3 never apply any edits to Wikipedia? I think that's more than fair.

[TungstenCarbide]

Bearcat (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who first began participating at Wikipedia in 2003...

HOLy fucking shit! "Edit count: 352,660"

Bearcat does heavy lifting wherever there's no spotlight. If I recall, he's deleted tens of thousands of copyvios.

[Lar]

Considering all of this helpful discussion and activity that MZMcBride and I have brought to the Wikipedia "community" over the past week, don't you all think it's high time that the ArbCom restore the admin bit to Cool3, on condition that Cool3 never apply any edits to Wikipedia? I think that's more than fair.

Still trying to get your money's worth, eh Greg?

No.

[tarantino]

Lar has finally got some cattle to go along with his hat.

The comic book guy is not amused..

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/GeorgeWilliamHerbert.jpg/250px-GeorgeWilliamHerbert.jpg)

[SDJ]

Is there anyone on Wikipedia more falsely convinced of their own superiority than Georgewilliamherbert?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Is there anyone on Wikipedia more falsely convinced of their own superiority than Georgewilliamherbert?

<Raises hand>

[GlassBeadGame]

Is there anyone on Wikipedia more falsely convinced of their own superiority than Georgewilliamherbert?

His use of clichés to replace actual thought is impressive even for a Wikipedian.

[Milton Roe]

Is there anyone on Wikipedia more falsely convinced of their own superiority than Georgewilliamherbert?

<Raises hand>

Desist! You are not fit to touch the vibram soles of Will Beback's hiking shoes in that category.

[Cla68]

An admin (not GeorgeWilliamHerbert) edited a fully protected policy to bring it back to "their" preferred version.

Oh, I guess the admin who did it might actually be in favor of the mass deletions. If so, he/she still should have left the policy as is.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Sarcasticidealist]

Desist! You are not fit to touch the vibram soles of Will Beback's hiking shoes in that category.

I don't think you fully appreciate just how awesome I think I am.

[Milton Roe]

Lar has finally got some cattle to go along with his hat.

The comic book guy is not amused..

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/GeorgeWilliamHerbert.jpg/250px-GeorgeWilliamHerbert.jpg)

Actually threatens to block a steward. LOL. Best bit of puffery I've seen on WP for a long time. It's like those fierce-looking opossums with that open mouthful of needle teeth, and the hiss of doom! So cute!

[SDJ]

I'm thinking that this might just be the "big one." It's all coming to a head with this BLP issue, I think.

[Milton Roe]

Desist! You are not fit to touch the vibram soles of Will Beback's hiking shoes in that category.

I don't think you fully appreciate just how awesome I think I am.

Bah. False immodesty was invented in America. Colbert or Asimov or somebody like that. You Canucks will never properly pull it off.

[Cla68]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

By the way, how many of these articles do you think GeorgeWilliamHerbert will volunteer to save by finding reliable sources for them and taking the time to add them in the proper format, while at the same time cleaning up the article and making sure that it has no other obvious problems? I'm seeing a whole of lot of revertin' here, but not a whole lot of trying to expand or improve too many articles.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[radek]

Heh, Jehochman is comparing ya'll (broadly construed) to the EEML. Which means ya'll are much fucked now.

[Jon Awbrey]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

In the future, everyone will be defamous for 7 days.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[SDJ]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

By the way, how many of these articles do you think GeorgeWilliamHerbert will volunteer to save by finding reliable sources for them and taking the time to add them in the proper format, while at the same time cleaning up the article and making sure that it has no other obvious problems? I'm seeing a whole of lot of revertin' here, but not a whole lot of trying to expand or improve too many articles.

Zero. He's an self-important git, nothing more.

[Milton Roe]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

It would be cool if the WikiMedia software had a timer which would trigger on dates like that, for any purpose that can be left on automatic to "undo" itself (or could be left to "execute" after a certain time, conditionally on something else. But I'm afraid you'd have to write a bot to do it. And the hardest part would not be letting the bot know what the date is (a simple function does this) but figuring how the bot can automatically detect if the condition has been met, so it doesn't trigger.

It's a lot easier when Wikis carry simple numeric flags for how many watchers they have, and the bot can detect THAT. It would not be hard to write a bot to delete something if it hadn't added 3 watchers by a certain date. But figuring out which articles have refs is a harder recognition thing. I suppose you could have it go through and look for <ref> and other markups for refs and cite-transclusion tags-- there are only half a dozen of them.

Note to developers: timers are needed for all kinds of Wiki admin actions, from setting deadlines for deletions, to setting times for sprotection to run, etc. Lots of things admins should be able to do without having to write a bot. Right now there's auto-timing for blocks, but I think that's about it. Anybody care to educate me (and others here) on this?

[MBisanz]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

It would be cool if the WikiMedia software had a timer which would trigger on dates like that, for any purpose that can be left on automatic to "undo" itself (or could be left to "execute" after a certain time, conditionally on something else. But I'm afraid you'd have to write a bot to do it. And the hardest part would not be letting the bot know what the date is (a simple function does this) but figuring how the bot can automatically detect if the condition has been met, so it doesn't trigger.

It's a lot easier when Wikis carry simple numeric flags for how many watchers they have, and the bot can detect THAT. It would not be hard to write a bot to delete something if it hadn't added 3 watchers by a certain date. But figuring out which articles have refs is a harder recognition thing. I suppose you could have it go through and look for <ref> and other markups for refs and cite-transclusion tags-- there are only half a dozen of them.

Note to developers: timers are needed for all kinds of Wiki admin actions, from setting deadlines for deletions, to setting times for sprotection to run, etc. Lots of things admins should be able to do without having to write a bot. Right now there's auto-timing for blocks, but I think that's about it. Anybody care to educate me (and others here) on this?

Both of those features exist, they are just turned off on WMF-wikis for performance/scalability reasons.

[Milton Roe]

Heh, Jehochman is comparing ya'll (broadly construed) to the EEML. Which means ya'll are much fucked now.

Ah, yes. Here is how that process diagram really goes:

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/EEMLflowchart.jpg)

[Jon Awbrey]

By the way, how many of these articles do you think GeorgeWilliamHerbert will volunteer to save by finding reliable sources for them and taking the time to add them in the proper format, while at the same time cleaning up the article and making sure that it has no other obvious problems? I'm seeing a whole of lot of revertin' here, but not a whole lot of trying to expand or improve too many articles.

Zero. He's an self-important git, nothing more.

But he did once have a Wikipedia Bio, notable for quoting his dismissal of the whole BLP problem.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

By the way, how many of these articles do you think GeorgeWilliamHerbert will volunteer to save by finding reliable sources for them and taking the time to add them in the proper format....

Maybe a few, just to prove he's not a marshmallow stuffed lard ass. or not.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[SDJ]

By the way, how many of these articles do you think GeorgeWilliamHerbert will volunteer to save by finding reliable sources for them and taking the time to add them in the proper format, while at the same time cleaning up the article and making sure that it has no other obvious problems? I'm seeing a whole of lot of revertin' here, but not a whole lot of trying to expand or improve too many articles.

Zero. He's an self-important git, nothing more.

But he did once have a Wikipedia Bio, notable for quoting his dismissal of the whole BLP problem.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

That doesn't shock me at all. He's now told mommy on me, for hurting his feelings. You should see the "diffs" he uses to "prove" his case. He's a joke.

[Viridae]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

I have had pretty much the same approach.

[MZMcBride]

Everyone seemed so damn intent on finding the oldest unreferenced biographies, so I decided to whip out LaraBot and set her to work.

I pulled all of the "page_id, page_title" pairs from Category:Living people and ordered them by page_id. The idea here is that page IDs are chronologically sequential—the oldest pages should have the lowest IDs.

LaraBot takes each of these biographies and looks up their page text using the API. It scans the page text for a number of strings, things like "http://", "<ref", "== References ==", etc.

This makes the checks very strict (increasing false negatives), but also makes the list very accurate (decreasing false positives). Which, for our purposes, is good enoughâ„¢ for the moment.

The first 100 are posted here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people.

All of them appear to have been created (or their earliest edits extend back to) 2002 and 2003. Please report any false positives here or elsewhere so that the list can be refined.

If you're super curious, I originally ran the report by page_id descending (checking the newest pages). There's an expectedly much higher rate of return. The page history has the old report. I'm currently running the report with a higher limit (500).

[Cla68]

Everyone seemed so damn intent on finding the oldest unreferenced biographies, so I decided to whip out LaraBot and set her to work.

I pulled all of the "page_id, page_title" pairs from Category:Living people and ordered them by page_id. The idea here is that page IDs are chronologically sequential—the oldest pages should have the lowest IDs.

LaraBot takes each of these biographies and looks up their page text using the API. It scans the page text for a number of strings, things like "http://", "<ref", "== References ==", etc.

This makes the checks very strict (increasing false negatives), but also makes the list very accurate (decreasing false positives). Which, for our purposes, is good enoughâ„¢ for the moment.

The first 100 are posted here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people.

All of them appear to have been created (or their earliest edits extend back to) 2002 and 2003. Please report any false positives here or elsewhere so that the list can be refined.

If you're super curious, I originally ran the report by page_id descending (checking the newest pages). There's an expectedly much higher rate of return. The page history has the old report. I'm currently running the report with a higher limit (500).

Some of the articles on this list are eight years old and have never been sourced. Time to get to work.

[radek]

Everyone seemed so damn intent on finding the oldest unreferenced biographies, so I decided to whip out LaraBot and set her to work.

I pulled all of the "page_id, page_title" pairs from Category:Living people and ordered them by page_id. The idea here is that page IDs are chronologically sequential—the oldest pages should have the lowest IDs.

LaraBot takes each of these biographies and looks up their page text using the API. It scans the page text for a number of strings, things like "http://", "<ref", "== References ==", etc.

This makes the checks very strict (increasing false negatives), but also makes the list very accurate (decreasing false positives). Which, for our purposes, is good enoughâ„¢ for the moment.

The first 100 are posted here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people.

All of them appear to have been created (or their earliest edits extend back to) 2002 and 2003. Please report any false positives here or elsewhere so that the list can be refined.

If you're super curious, I originally ran the report by page_id descending (checking the newest pages). There's an expectedly much higher rate of return. The page history has the old report. I'm currently running the report with a higher limit (500).

Some of the articles on this list are eight years old and have never been sourced. Time to get to work.

Ack! You can't delete Schumacher .... wait, that's not The Schumacher. Ok, got my permission.

This post has been edited by radek:

[taiwopanfob]

Some of the articles on this list are eight years old and have never been sourced. Time to get to work.

I quickly checked half of them, and indeed, there are no references to be found. Literally zero. A curious sample of Puerto Rican's, Mexicans, boxers, politicians, Japanese poets, completely unknown musicians, etc.

A few lead to other articles though, which are also unreferenced. For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Morgan

Leads to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_Urban_America

Many claims in that article, not one single reference beyond the book itself. (Is it even notable?)

This, however, leads to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._England

Which has no references either.

[Cla68]

Several editors have jumped in to save some of these articles by adding references, such as Casliber and Caspian Blue. So, the mass deletions and prods are having some beneficial results.

[Milton Roe]

Everyone seemed so damn intent on finding the oldest unreferenced biographies, so I decided to whip out LaraBot and set her to work.

I pulled all of the "page_id, page_title" pairs from Category:Living people and ordered them by page_id. The idea here is that page IDs are chronologically sequential—the oldest pages should have the lowest IDs.

LaraBot takes each of these biographies and looks up their page text using the API. It scans the page text for a number of strings, things like "http://", "<ref", "== References ==", etc.

This makes the checks very strict (increasing false negatives), but also makes the list very accurate (decreasing false positives). Which, for our purposes, is good enoughâ„¢ for the moment.

The first 100 are posted here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people.

All of them appear to have been created (or their earliest edits extend back to) 2002 and 2003. Please report any false positives here or elsewhere so that the list can be refined.

If you're super curious, I originally ran the report by page_id descending (checking the newest pages). There's an expectedly much higher rate of return. The page history has the old report. I'm currently running the report with a higher limit (500).

A breaching test edit for BLPs could be something silly but innocuous, which if noticed would be removed by anyone, but cause no problems otherwise. Something like:

In the future, if XYZ were to reach 123 years of age, that would make them the oldest living human. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

OR

If XYZ were to sprint 100 meters in less than 9.69 seconds at the 2012 Olympics, this would beat the Olympic record set in 2008 by Usain Bolt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Something of that sort.

So let's do some, and see what happens over a test period of time (any admins with juice still out there? They'd just use this as an excuse to nail Yrs Trly). It will have to be on a small sample of the unwatched samples WITH references, since the doofus arbcom is apparently watching the ones you sent them already.

[taiwopanfob]

Several editors have jumped in to save some of these articles by adding references, such as Casliber and Caspian Blue. So, the mass deletions and prods are having some beneficial results.

Whatever the results, they will be insignificant given the scale of the problem. The easiest way to make this work significant is, ironically, to erase most of them...

Heck, it's now clear to me that references are only the beginning: even if referenced, most of these articles have questions of notability as well.

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[Milton Roe]

[

Several editors have jumped in to save some of these articles by adding references, such as Casliber and Caspian Blue. So, the mass deletions and prods are having some beneficial results.

But totally screwing up any possibility of experimenting to see how long harmless faux-vandalism of them lasts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Damnit, people, this is sociology! Tell the test subjects a harmless lie and let's get on with seeing what they do!

[SDJ]

Some "helpful" editor has deprodded two of the articles, but hasn't bothered to add any sources, only claiming "but they're notable." I'm not CERTAIN what the policy is on reprodding, but I'm certainly considering it, given that the reason I gave for prodding them was "unreferenced" not "non-notable."

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._mass_deletions

Could someone remove the date stamp on this thread so it doesn't get swept under the rug like, you know, most threads that get their own AN/I subpage? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Unless, of course, Coffee intended the thread to disappear once the archive bot notices it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Lar]

Some "helpful" editor has deprodded two of the articles, but hasn't bothered to add any sources, only claiming "but they're notable." I'm not CERTAIN what the policy is on reprodding, but I'm certainly considering it, given that the reason I gave for prodding them was "unreferenced" not "non-notable."

You're not supposed to, I didn't think. AfD is next, I think.

[SDJ]

I've prodded a bunch (shh, don't tell Nick-D or he'll mass-revert), and I don't have the time to construct AFDs for all of them. Just prodding all of the DEC06 ones is going to take quite awhile.

[Milton Roe]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

It would be cool if the WikiMedia software had a timer which would trigger on dates like that, for any purpose that can be left on automatic to "undo" itself (or could be left to "execute" after a certain time, conditionally on something else. But I'm afraid you'd have to write a bot to do it. And the hardest part would not be letting the bot know what the date is (a simple function does this) but figuring how the bot can automatically detect if the condition has been met, so it doesn't trigger.

It's a lot easier when Wikis carry simple numeric flags for how many watchers they have, and the bot can detect THAT. It would not be hard to write a bot to delete something if it hadn't added 3 watchers by a certain date. But figuring out which articles have refs is a harder recognition thing. I suppose you could have it go through and look for <ref> and other markups for refs and cite-transclusion tags-- there are only half a dozen of them.

Note to developers: timers are needed for all kinds of Wiki admin actions, from setting deadlines for deletions, to setting times for sprotection to run, etc. Lots of things admins should be able to do without having to write a bot. Right now there's auto-timing for blocks, but I think that's about it. Anybody care to educate me (and others here) on this?

Both of those features exist, they are just turned off on WMF-wikis for performance/scalability reasons.

For whaaa....? It's not obvious to me why having no way to make something happen automatically, like watering your lawn or operating your washing machine-- when you're bound to forget about it otherwise-- is somehow a matter of performance or scalability. The scale still needs to be chosen for any task. But there are some things you'd like to do at the large-batch scale, but with auto-features disabled, are forced to do by hand and with Post-It notes. When you could instead..... use a computer. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Wouldn't that be modern? The Wooooorld of Tomooooorow!!

[MBisanz]

This appears to be a workable approach also. I take it if no one sources this article within 7 days, it will be automatically deleted?

It would be cool if the WikiMedia software had a timer which would trigger on dates like that, for any purpose that can be left on automatic to "undo" itself (or could be left to "execute" after a certain time, conditionally on something else. But I'm afraid you'd have to write a bot to do it. And the hardest part would not be letting the bot know what the date is (a simple function does this) but figuring how the bot can automatically detect if the condition has been met, so it doesn't trigger.

It's a lot easier when Wikis carry simple numeric flags for how many watchers they have, and the bot can detect THAT. It would not be hard to write a bot to delete something if it hadn't added 3 watchers by a certain date. But figuring out which articles have refs is a harder recognition thing. I suppose you could have it go through and look for <ref> and other markups for refs and cite-transclusion tags-- there are only half a dozen of them.

Note to developers: timers are needed for all kinds of Wiki admin actions, from setting deadlines for deletions, to setting times for sprotection to run, etc. Lots of things admins should be able to do without having to write a bot. Right now there's auto-timing for blocks, but I think that's about it. Anybody care to educate me (and others here) on this?

Both of those features exist, they are just turned off on WMF-wikis for performance/scalability reasons.

For whaaa....? It's not obvious to me why no way to make something happen automatically, like watering your lawn or operating your washing machine, when you're bound to forget about it otherwise, is somehow a matter of performance or scalability. The scale still needs to be chosen. But there are some things you'd like to do at the large-batch scale, but with features disabled are forced to do by hand and with Post-It notes. When you could instead..... use a computer. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Wouldn't that be modern? The Wooooorld of Tomooooorow!!

For the first one I'm not familiar enough with the situation, but for the second issue of listing how many people are watching a page, remember that every page is cached to the squids to show to most IP readers. If you had the number watching the page listed on it, it would need to be updated far more often and greatly increase the squid refresh rate.

[Milton Roe]

For the first one I'm not familiar enough with the situation, but for the second issue of listing how many people are watching a page, remember that every page is cached to the squids to show to most IP readers. If you had the number watching the page listed on it, it would need to be updated far more often and greatly increase the squid refresh rate.

I don't see why, since old versions don't need updating on this. Right now the cache holds the updatable number for the current version, right? It's like some transcluded counter that we see on many pages. But the older version with the warning delete tag (the only one anybody cares about this number on) needn't have anything changable and needing update like that, because the data never changes.

To put it another way: any such old number (say that the version with the warning label was watched by only by 1 person when it was applied) does not change. Thus, it can be stored in whatever cache holds unchanging ID data from any Wiki which isn't seen, but is duplicated and to newer versions automatically. There must be such a cache which holds permanent (unchanging) ID data about any given article, which is duplicated whenever a newer version is created. The number of watchers of any article version can simply function as a hidden category tag or something. I see no reason why it should function like a transcluded counter, except in the newest (current) version where it does already. I hope I put that in a way that made sense.

[MZMcBride]

For the first one I'm not familiar enough with the situation, but for the second issue of listing how many people are watching a page, remember that every page is cached to the squids to show to most IP readers. If you had the number watching the page listed on it, it would need to be updated far more often and greatly increase the squid refresh rate.

No. The way that the more "intensive" features operate is that they'll just return stale results until the page is purged (either through an edit, a null edit, or ?action=purge). Otherwise, things like {{PAGESINCATEGORY:foo}} would already be causing the type of problem you're describing.

BACK TO THE CAGE WITH YOU, MS. BISANZ.

[Viridae]

Several editors have jumped in to save some of these articles by adding references, such as Casliber and Caspian Blue. So, the mass deletions and prods are having some beneficial results.

Others however are just de-prodding without adding anything at all. Incredibly unhelpful.

User:Hobit is a good example of that. JUst llooked at their contribs. Spent at least the last 2 months commenting on deletion discussion. Almost exclusively. Probably gaming for adminship.

This post has been edited by Viridae:

[Kelly Martin]

It seems that I now owe a number of people a drink. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[SDJ]

Several editors have jumped in to save some of these articles by adding references, such as Casliber and Caspian Blue. So, the mass deletions and prods are having some beneficial results.

Others however are just de-prodding without adding anything at all. Incredibly unhelpful.

At least the guy who deprodded two of mine offered some reasoning at my talkpage when questioned about it. Nick D on the other hand is just mass-reverting Firsfron's prods.

[Coffee]

Heh, Jehochman is comparing ya'll (broadly construed) to the EEML. Which means ya'll are much fucked now.

Hah I love how he always revs up the drama engines whenever possible, especially if it in no way possible concerns him.

I'm also interested to learn about this "cabal"... where exactly is it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._mass_deletions

Could someone remove the date stamp on this thread so it doesn't get swept under the rug like, you know, most threads that get their own AN/I subpage? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Unless, of course, Coffee intended the thread to disappear once the archive bot notices it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Damnit... you caught me red handed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[SDJ]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

[Kelly Martin]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

If he can get the rest of the committee behind that, it'll be a good thing. However, I really rather doubt he can. And even if he does the screaming from the "communi-wha" will be epic.

[SDJ]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

If he can get the rest of the committee behind that, it'll be a good thing. However, I really rather doubt he can. And even if he does the screaming from the "communi-wha" will be epic.

Risker and Fritzpoll are already supporting. Five more, and it passes.

Now Roger is on board. If this motion passes quickly, I think we'll have a very firm statement from the arbs as to where they stand on BLP policy.

[Milton Roe]

Now Roger is on board. If this motion passes quickly, I think we'll have a very firm statement from the arbs as to where they stand on BLP policy.

That they're willing to weed out the worst 1/7th of the worst 1/7th of BLPs? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Two cheers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Now Roger is on board. If this motion passes quickly, I think we'll have a very firm statement from the arbs as to where they stand on BLP policy.

Yup, we will know for absolutely certain that they don't want to touch it with a 10 million foot pole.

This motion won't end the fight, if anything it'll expand it. Which is, of course, why I want to see it adopted. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Viridae]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

Oh that's good. That's very good.

[radek]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

Wow. Sanity. We'll see if it works.

[dogbiscuit]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

Wow. Sanity. We'll see if it works.

Sanity == not one of us. "Teh Community" will not approve of being told what to do by arbitrators. Expect lots of sulking.

Burn the heretics!

[Coffee]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

If he can get the rest of the committee behind that, it'll be a good thing. However, I really rather doubt he can. And even if he does the screaming from the "communi-wha" will be epic.

Wow ArbCom is finally making a wonderful stand in regards to this. I'd be very very pleased to see them pass this.

[SDJ]

It would be a start, and demonstrate actual progress made, even if it would only be 1/14 of the entire problem.

[radek]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

Wow. Sanity. We'll see if it works.

Sanity == not one of us. "Teh Community" will not approve of being told what to do by arbitrators. Expect lots of sulking.

Burn the heretics!

yeah, that's the "We'll see..." part.

[SDJ]

Georgie's attempt to get me blocked for calling out his nonsense went down in flames as well, archived after like 4 responses.

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

If he can get the rest of the committee behind that, it'll be a good thing. However, I really rather doubt he can. And even if he does the screaming from the "communi-wha" will be epic.

Wow ArbCom is finally making a wonderful stand in regards to this. I'd be very very pleased to see them pass this.

I agree. This would be a VERY strong statement against the WP:BURO crowd.

[Kelly Martin]

Kirill has proposed a summary motion, in lieu of a case. This could get very interesting.

Well, at least one of them runs in fear of the "you cannot delete my precious precious article" crowd (or perhaps the "you cannot disregard the policies I like in favor of the ones I don't" crowd, it's hard to tell when a mob is chasing you).

[Kelly Martin]

The bit that gets me about all this are comments like "problems such as this need to be resolved in without generating huge rows" from some irrelevant idiot. These people really don't understand that this problem has been unresolved for years, despite years of attempts at discussions toward getting it solved. The only way to solve problems on Wikipedia is to create a huge row. Nothing less than that will break through.

At least this time the row was over virtually the only thing that does matter on Wikipedia.

[radek]

The bit that gets me about all this are comments like "problems such as this need to be resolved in without generating huge rows" from some irrelevant idiot. These people really don't understand that this problem has been unresolved for years, despite years of attempts at discussions toward getting it solved. The only way to solve problems on Wikipedia is to create a huge row. Nothing less than that will break through.

At least this time the row was over virtually the only thing that does matter on Wikipedia.

Make a "6 fucking years!!!" template that can be {{ }} into a comment as a standard response. Trout slapping is far too subtle for some of these comments.

[Milton Roe]

It would be a start, and demonstrate actual progress made, even if it would only be 1/14 of the entire problem.

1/7 x 1/7 = 1/49th

This is 8,000 BLPs, roughly 1/50th of roughly 400,000 BLPs.

Ah, that cruelest 2%

If they fix it all, that much will regrow in months.

[radek]

For the deletion-happy-admin-monkeys-out-there-that-are-thinking-of-taking-up-the-gauntlet-and-with-whom-I-essentially-agree-with-but-there-are-subtleties-and-shit...

Don't delete the articles on Kazik Staszewski or Papcio Chmiel

The first one see these first: 1 , 2, 3 (multiple and probably purposeful violations of the Gdansk vote in that one) (among many others)

For the second - well, let's just say those were my favorite comic books when I was a kid.

Both are in the category of un-reffed BLPs (and who knows how many watchers) and probably been that way for awhile. If it came to my attention earlier I would've fixed them. Now topic ban, blah blah blah, but it would take less than 8 seconds to ref them.

Common sense please.

[SB_Johnny]

So wait, MZMcBride gives a few pages to Greg, Greg runs an experiment, Durova chases MZM off, and a week or so later Arbcom is passing a motion?

I picked a bad week to get busy at work.

[Lar]

So wait, MZMcBride gives a few pages to Greg, Greg runs an experiment, Durova chases MZM off, and a week or so later Arbcom is passing a motion?

I picked a bad week to get busy at work.

Damn seasons.

[thekohser]

So wait, MZMcBride gives a few pages to Greg, Greg runs an experiment, Durova chases MZM off, and a week or so later Arbcom is passing a motion?

I picked a bad week to get busy at work.

Well, a bit more accurately:

MZMcBride quantifies a particular aspect of the BLP problem; Greg has a brilliant idea for a breaching experiment, but fails to discuss it privately with McBride; McBride gives 20 article titles to Greg; Greg runs the experiment; Durova causes such a dramatic stir that McBride is eventually persuaded to give ArbCom the same list of 20 articles; the experiment is fouled; by way of excessive IP address privacy invasion, Greg's admin account is detected and blocked; and a week or so later ArbCom is passing a motion.

[thekohser]

It's also nice to see that Guy Chapman still has his crush on me:

The good thing about unsourced BLPs is... er... oh, there is nothing good about them. Oh, wait, I suppose they might be valuable as part of a breaching experiment by a banned user, is that good? Maybe not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[SDJ]

Wow, never thought SirFozzie would oppose such a straightforward and necessary motion.

[MBisanz]

It's also nice to see that Guy Chapman still has his crush on me:

The good thing about unsourced BLPs is... er... oh, there is nothing good about them. Oh, wait, I suppose they might be valuable as part of a breaching experiment by a banned user, is that good? Maybe not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg, aren't you happy in the least that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions?

Wow, never thought SirFozzie would oppose such a straightforward and necessary motion.

Even Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas disagree from time to time, it doesn't mean one is always right when they disagree and that the other is always wrong.

[SDJ]

I don't know MBisanz, it just seems that this is so cut-and-dried, with IAR completely outweighing the WP:BURO crowd...

[carbuncle]

I just realized that this is all going on during the 2nd Annual Wikipedia Dramaout. I think this sets a new standard for FAIL.

[The Wales Hunter]

It's also nice to see that Guy Chapman still has his crush on me:

The good thing about unsourced BLPs is... er... oh, there is nothing good about them. Oh, wait, I suppose they might be valuable as part of a breaching experiment by a banned user, is that good? Maybe not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw what you like about Guy on other issues or how he puts his argument across, but he has one of the more straightforward, sensible views on BLP and will not hesitate to remove unsourced claims and errs on the of delete, well on the side.

As he says, there is no reason to have unsourced BLPs on the project.

[TungstenCarbide]

I just realized that this is all going on during the 2nd Annual Wikipedia Dramaout. I think this sets a new standard for FAIL.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

...and a week or so later ArbCom is passing a motion.

Is that what they are passing? Someone get the air freshener out, please. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[MZMcBride]

I don't know MBisanz, it just seems that this is so cut-and-dried, with IAR completely outweighing the WP:BURO crowd...

You really can't see the potential problems with this motion? Kelly has already alluded to them. Think harder and longer term.

[Random832]

I just realized that this is all going on during the 2nd Annual Wikipedia Dramaout. I think this sets a new standard for FAIL.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

They seriously scheduled that for late January? Talk about no sense of history... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Can you really believe, Steve, that more flawed, confused, and deformed process involving every wannabe politician and drive by Wikipedian can possibly be helpful?

#Broadly agree, but this is sufficiently complex that it merits a full case. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[thekohser]

Greg, aren't you happy in the least that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions?

It still remains to be seen how this will play out in the next 5 to 10 days, but yes, of course I am happy that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions.

You will recall that this is exactly what I've advocated in my past two tries for the WMF Board of Trustees, and I would dare say that it was my BLP breaching experiment about two weeks ago that catalyzed this current flurry of activity.

When might I expect my "thank you" note from Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Can you really believe, Steve, that more flawed, confused, and deformed process involving every wannabe politician and drive by Wikipedian can possibly be helpful?

Apparently. The involvement of every wannabe politician and drive by Wikipedian is inevitable, with or without a case. Additional time, consideration, and input can lead to a resolution that draws more coherently from policy and past cases (especially badlydrawnjeff) and therefore enjoys greater legitimacy. I also think it could lead to some additional useful remedies. Finally, I think the current motion includes a bit of a landmine with the "urged to do so less chaotically" clause, which means that it does little to enhance predictability.

[Lar]

When might I expect my "thank you" note from Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales?

About the same time an edit to bread crediting you for inventing sliced bread sticks for more than a short time.

Is it true you invented the internet, too? Or maybe it was Cable TV, I forget.

[Jon Awbrey]

Greg, aren't you happy in the least that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions?

It still remains to be seen how this will play out in the next 5 to 10 days, but yes, of course I am happy that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions.

You will recall that this is exactly what I've advocated in my past two tries for the WMF Board of Trustees, and I would dare say that it was my BLP breaching experiment about two weeks ago that catalyzed this current flurry of activity.

When might I expect my "thank you" note from Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales?

See Hell Freezes Over (M-P-T)

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I have yet to see anybody (on the wiki, at least) mention the suggestion that flagged revisions should be activated on all BLPs or at least all unwatched or unsourced BLPs. Why is this?

[thekohser]

When might I expect my "thank you" note from Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales?

About the same time an edit to bread crediting you for inventing sliced bread sticks for more than a short time.

Is it true you invented the internet, too? Or maybe it was Cable TV, I forget.

You're so jealous, Lar, that I'm a more famous Wikipedian than you are.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Greg, aren't you happy in the least that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions?

It still remains to be seen how this will play out in the next 5 to 10 days, but yes, of course I am happy that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions.

You will recall that this is exactly what I've advocated in my past two tries for the WMF Board of Trustees, and I would dare say that it was my BLP breaching experiment about two weeks ago that catalyzed this current flurry of activity.

When might I expect my "thank you" note from Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales?

The next 5 to 10 days? That's just the first round. You have the non-implementation, erosion, counter drama, paybacks and reversals to follow. If it prevails BLP will be back where it is today in a year. Perhaps the locus of debate will shift to the use of very poor sourcing instead of non-sourcing. And remember this is a watery 2% solution.

[A Horse With No Name]

Greg, aren't you happy in the least that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions?

It still remains to be seen how this will play out in the next 5 to 10 days, but yes, of course I am happy that WP is finally adopting some kind of responsibility for its actions.

You will recall that this is exactly what I've advocated in my past two tries for the WMF Board of Trustees, and I would dare say that it was my BLP breaching experiment about two weeks ago that catalyzed this current flurry of activity.

When might I expect my "thank you" note from Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales?

You might be mistaking actions and activities with distraction and posturing. Plus, this appears to be the only dust storm on today's plain -- without some sort of scandal or foolish shenanigans to keep everyone in a lather, this is going to dominate conversation until the next fiasco occurs.

Absent of professional publishing standards (let alone competent editors), this nonsense will never be fixed. I would bet that if we come back in a year's time, the situation will either be the same as today or perhaps even worse.

Greg has the right, however, to take a bow. He has shown that the alleged leadership of this site isn't so much asleep at the wheel as they are comatose in their chairs. For a web site that has already suffered the worst PR imaginable for its complete lack of accuracy, Greg's actions confirm that the people in charge have no clue how to manage a reference publishing entity.

No professional publishing company would ever allow anything of this nature to take root, let alone blossom in such a toxic and stupid manner. But then again, no one ever mistook Wikipedia for professional-level publishing.

[Doc glasgow]

I have yet to see anybody (on the wiki, at least) mention the suggestion that flagged revisions should be activiated on all BLPs or at least all unwatched or unsourced BLPs. Why is this?

Because it won't work for all BLPs.

If flagged is deployed over a wide range of articles it is useless from a BLP point of view. If there are too many edits covered, then what will happen is there will be a mass of lazy reviewers, who will never check sources or do anything other than screen out obvious stuff. That will certainly spare some of wikipedia's blushes, but it will not stop real BLP harm. Anything that is obvious to the uninformed reviewer's quick glance is also obvious to the reader, and if its falsehood is obvious to the reader it can't harm the subject.

It would be a great pity if a useful tool was spent ridding wikipedia of silly vandalism.

As for on all unwatched biographies, that has been proposed. See my Targeted Flagging.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Apathetic]

Georgie's attempt to get me blocked for calling out his nonsense went down in flames as well, archived after like 4 responses.

Hm I didn't know you were officially 'out'

[SDJ]

Georgie's attempt to get me blocked for calling out his nonsense went down in flames as well, archived after like 4 responses.

Hm I didn't know you were officially 'out'

Yeah. Between Lisa Broer (some fun emails there!) and Phil Hall, I just linked all my former accounts on my userpage. I'm not hiding from some long block log or anything, so I figured it was best to jest end any speculation as to who I might be.

In fact, the only times I've been blocked are on my first account, by SlimVirgin, Crum375, and Georgewilliamherbert. Slim was for 3RR (VERY early on), Crum was because I "laughed" when someone posted a long "good bye" note, and Georgewilliamherbert blocked me for "harassing" one of his buddies. Gwh's friend had complained about my using edit summaries to call vandals "morons" or something like that, and he had been shot down for it. I asked Gwh's friend to quit stalking my contributions to check out my "uncivil" edit summaries. I told him, "you leave me alone and I'll never post to your talkpage again", and Gwh blocked me for 3 hours for "harassment." One of the stupidest blocks I've encountered. It probably drives him nuts that he can't find an excuse to sully my block log now.

Anyway, those are the only blocks I've got on my record, so I'm not really hiding from them.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm quite certain that the RFC will whizz about for a month or so and end up creating yet another optional process by which people can beg that unsourced biographies get sourced. However, as actually sourcing them is and remains "someone else's problem", nothing will actually be done, and the problem will continue to persist.

It's ironic that Kirill's motion would be the best resolution to this dispute if Wikipedians were reasonably mature individuals all committed to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Sadly, they are not, and because they are not Kirill's motion will, if adopted, merely stoke the fires further. Unfortunately, you cannot make emotionally and intellectually defective people behave sensibly simply by being straightforward with them, as Kirill is wont to do. Managing Wikipedia's herd of crybabies requires more finesse than that.

[SDJ]

I'm quite certain that the RFC will whizz about for a month or so and end up creating yet another optional process by which people can beg that unsourced biographies get sourced. However, as actually sourcing them is and remains "someone else's problem", nothing will actually be done, and the problem will continue to persist.

It's ironic that Kirill's motion would be the best resolution to this dispute if Wikipedians were reasonably mature individuals all committed to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Sadly, they are not, and because they are not Kirill's motion will, if adopted, merely stoke the fires further. Unfortunately, you cannot make emotionally and intellectually defective people behave sensibly simply by being straightforward with them, as Kirill is wont to do. Managing Wikipedia's herd of crybabies requires more finesse than that.

I agree that the RFC is completely doomed to failure. The problem will not be solved until the WP:BURO-wonks get slapped down, once and for all, and told that BLP definitively, absolutely, no-further-discussion-necessary trumps every other policy concern. That said, I'm going to continue prodding these articles, and see if that helps at all. It's not ideal, as it takes 7 days to get one deleted, but it's better than nothing, I think.

[MBisanz]

I'm quite certain that the RFC will whizz about for a month or so and end up creating yet another optional process by which people can beg that unsourced biographies get sourced. However, as actually sourcing them is and remains "someone else's problem", nothing will actually be done, and the problem will continue to persist.

It's ironic that Kirill's motion would be the best resolution to this dispute if Wikipedians were reasonably mature individuals all committed to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Sadly, they are not, and because they are not Kirill's motion will, if adopted, merely stoke the fires further. Unfortunately, you cannot make emotionally and intellectually defective people behave sensibly simply by being straightforward with them, as Kirill is wont to do. Managing Wikipedia's herd of crybabies requires more finesse than that.

I think a similarly dramatic process concluded the debate over non-free images. However, that debate had the added factor that at the time, images could not be undeleted.

[Doc glasgow]

I'm quite certain that the RFC will whizz about for a month or so and end up creating yet another optional process by which people can beg that unsourced biographies get sourced. However, as actually sourcing them is and remains "someone else's problem", nothing will actually be done, and the problem will continue to persist.

It's ironic that Kirill's motion would be the best resolution to this dispute if Wikipedians were reasonably mature individuals all committed to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Sadly, they are not, and because they are not Kirill's motion will, if adopted, merely stoke the fires further. Unfortunately, you cannot make emotionally and intellectually defective people behave sensibly simply by being straightforward with them, as Kirill is wont to do. Managing Wikipedia's herd of crybabies requires more finesse than that.

I agree that the RFC is completely doomed to failure. The problem will not be solved until the WP:BURO-wonks get slapped down, once and for all, and told that BLP definitively, absolutely, no-further-discussion-necessary trumps every other policy concern. That said, I'm going to continue prodding these articles, and see if that helps at all. It's not ideal, as it takes 7 days to get one deleted, but it's better than nothing, I think.

I've tried PROD in the past. The problem is that toomany people have a single track focused on notability. The result was that no matter how much I said in the nomination about sources and verification, people unprodded (without fixing the sourcing) saying "asserts notability, take it to AfD". You take it to AfD, and you get slapped for not sourcing the article yourself - which is back to the "this is someone else's problem", with no ownus on those wishing to retain the article to do anything.

My solution is to speedy delete. If you want the article, you can undelete it (or ask someone to) if YOU fix the sourcing issues. If no one is willing to do that, it stays deleted until someone is.

Looks like a good plan, and I see no reason to stop.

[Kelly Martin]

I agree that the RFC is completely doomed to failure. The problem will not be solved until the WP:BURO-wonks get slapped down, once and for all, and told that BLP definitively, absolutely, no-further-discussion-necessary trumps every other policy concern. That said, I'm going to continue prodding these articles, and see if that helps at all. It's not ideal, as it takes 7 days to get one deleted, but it's better than nothing, I think.

Statements like "BLP definitively, absolutely, no-further-discussion-necessary trumps every other policy concern" don't help. That's not true, nor should it be. But that doesn't matter. You can't fix this by changing the policies; you fix it by changing the people.

Let's take one commenter on the arbitration request as an example. Rebecca (T-C-L-K-R-D) , herself a former arbitrator, is objecting quite strongly to the deletions. Her objection is written so as to sound as if she is upset that "process wasn't followed", but her real reason for being upset is that articles she cares about were deleted, because they're articles about Australian politics and Rebecca's reason for ongoing involvement in Wikipedia is her deep and abiding obsession with Australian politics (frankly, I suspect she's actively forwarding an agenda, but don't really care enough to verify that suspicion). She doesn't really care about process, and will ignore, circumvent, or twist it herself to get what she wants when the moment is right. She's just using a process argument because that works to strike at the person who did what she didn't like. Notably, she completely ignored that she could have, instead, politely requested the undeletion of the articles in question, on a promise to source them, and the matter would have been resolved in her favor, but that's also because she's a combative and domineering person.

Creating more processes, or changing the existing processes, won't change the behavior of Rebecca: she will continue to gnome away at her Australian politician articles, and lash out with whatever weapons she can find in the policy arsenal at anyone who gets in her way or does anything she doesn't like. Changing out the glaive for a halberd won't matter much.

Of course, there are thousands of others just like Rebecca (although most of them are not former arbitrators). They're not a majority (most Wikipedians are content to gnome away until they run into a problem, then try to deal with it as maturely as they can, or else leave), but they're a large enough population to make the site completely unmanageable, especially when combined with a handful of people who go beyond merely being combative to being actively malicious and a handful more who are just active agitators.

Wikipedia needs to be far more aggressive in culling its volunteer base, but lacks the will to do so. Until it does, it will continue to founder.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

The RFC will be full of sound and fury and signify nothing...as is the general nature of RFCs.
Quite a contrast from the cluster fuck last year over the Advisory Council on Project Development.

This is a very rate alignment of BOLDness, the AC, policy and the community in the right constellation.
Tis an anomaly to be sure, but one I hope we will be seeing a lot more often now.

[Kelly Martin]

I've tried PROD in the past. The problem is that toomany people have a single track focused on notability. The result was that no matter how much I said in the nomination about sources and verification, people unprodded (without fixing the sourcing) saying "asserts notability, take it to AfD". You take it to AfD, and you get slapped for not sourcing the article yourself - which is back to the "this is someone else's problem", with no ownus on those wishing to retain the article to do anything.

I blame the "sofixit" mentality that is rampant in Wikipedia: that's one of Wikipedia's most effective ways of cutting off internal criticism. You are simply not allowed to raise concerns about any aspect of Wikipedia that you are not personally prepared to fix yourself. Since so many of Wikipedia's problems are far too large for one person to fix singlehandedly, this makes it impossible to criticize Wikipedia from within the system; the critic will just be barraged with a litany of "sofixit" demands that marginalize the critic and terminate discussion.

[SB_Johnny]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

Does that mean it's passed and can be acted on, or is there some time limit before that?

Rain a-coming tomorrow morning... might have to dust off the old deletion button and give it a spin!

[Kelly Martin]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

My prediction: the deletions will continue as the BLP advocates and deletionists will interpret the motion as clear endorsement of their actions. The inclusionists will interpret the motion as a clear directive to stop the deletions, which will lead to more blocks of admins, and more demands for desysoping. Eventually (within a week, I imagine) a bona-fide wheel war will occur, and an emergency desysop will be ordered either by the ArbCom or by Jimmy himself.

[SDJ]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on where BLP resides in the policy pantheon, Kelly. I think it trumps all other bureaucratic issues, and feel that a firm statement from arbcom to that effect would be helpful. That said, your point about the quality of volunteers on the project isn't without merit. That's a FAR tougher nut to crack, though.

[Doc glasgow]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

The RFC will be full of sound and fury and signify nothing...as is the general nature of RFCs.
Quite a contrast from the cluster fuck last year over the Advisory Council on Project Development.

This is a very rate alignment of BOLDness, the AC, policy and the community in the right constellation.
Tis an anomaly to be sure, but one I hope we will be seeing a lot more often now.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Christmas came early (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

We now have an arbcom ruling saying that summarily deleting unsourced BLPs is NOT outside policy and the BLP (very liberally interpreted) trumphs all else.

Yes, the RFC will almost certainly be a waste of time. However, if it can come upwith an effective remedy all good and well. If it fails, then we get speedy deletion.

Removing all unsourced BLPs is really quite a small step. However, the way it has happended means all bets off in future.

As much as they will deny it, we just saw arbcom legislate on BLP (and not for the first time).

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

Does that mean it's passed and can be acted on, or is there some time limit before that?

Rain a-coming tomorrow morning... might have to dust off the old deletion button and give it a spin!

I say go for it dude!
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

My prediction: the deletions will continue as the BLP advocates and deletionists will interpret the motion as clear endorsement of their actions. The inclusionists will interpret the motion as a clear directive to stop the deletions, which will lead to more blocks of admins, and more demands for desysoping. Eventually (within a week, I imagine) a bona-fide wheel war will occur, and an emergency desysop will be ordered either by the ArbCom or by Jimmy himself.

Ah but deletionism and inclusionism are red herrings...yes?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[MBisanz]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

Does that mean it's passed and can be acted on, or is there some time limit before that?

Rain a-coming tomorrow morning... might have to dust off the old deletion button and give it a spin!

In due course (meaning when the get around to it with something like a minimum 24 hour waiting period) a clerk will archive it all and post a notice to WP:AC/N at which point it will be considered to "have passed." But since it is not specifically worded as an action motion (other than the amnesty portion), there isn't anything in it to be "acted on," except the implicit meaning that it is permissible to summarily delete old unreferenced BLPs and that other administrators should weigh the compliance with BLP policy over the form of deletion procedures.

[SDJ]

Watching the hand-wringing by the policy-wonk crowd, it's kind of ironic that they're up in arms about this motion, which, by POLICY, the arbcom is allowed to do.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

The RFC will be full of sound and fury and signify nothing...as is the general nature of RFCs.
Quite a contrast from the cluster fuck last year over the Advisory Council on Project Development.

This is a very rate alignment of BOLDness, the AC, policy and the community in the right constellation.
Tis an anomaly to be sure, but one I hope we will be seeing a lot more often now.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Christmas came early (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

We now have an arbcom ruling saying that summarily deleting unsourced BLPs is NOT outside policy and the BLP (very liberally interpreted) trumphs all else.

Yes, the RFC will almost certainly be a waste of time. However, if it can come upwith an effective remedy all good and well. If it fails, then we get speedy deletion.

Removing all unsourced BLPs is really quite a small step. However, the way it has happended means all bets off in future.

As much as they will deny it, we just saw arbcom legislate on BLP (and not for the first time).

Jehochlad is bitching about it mightily on KL's talkpage.

Has the inevitable RFC been filed yet?
If so, can I has link just in case something interesting does happen in the damn thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on where BLP resides in the policy pantheon, Kelly. I think it trumps all other bureaucratic issues, and feel that a firm statement from arbcom to that effect would be helpful.

There is at least one core value that is at an equal level with the responsibility not to defame living people ("BLP" is just jargon for that duty). The other main duty that I feel falls at that level is the duty not to infringe copyright. Since the usual remedy for breaches of either of these core duties is the removal of the offending content, I don't think that either core duty would ever conflict with the other, but let's be clear that these two core values are, or should be, coequal, neither having priority over the other. (Although as I think about it I can see defamation being superior to copyright; it just doesn't matter as bringing the two into conflict is quite difficult.)

However, that doesn't mean that an admin should be able to do anything at all and just slap the "BLP" (or "copyvio") "trump card" down on the table and thereby win the trick, which is what you get when you declare that "BLP trumps all other bureaucratic issues". There has to be both policy and process relating to how Wikipedia enforces these core values. Right now Wikipedia has very fuzzy policy and no process at all, and furthermore it has no method for adopting new policy or new process because of its idiotic attachment to "consensus governance". A solution requires getting past that impasse; until that's resolved discussions on what appropriate policy or process would be are meaningless, because they will simply never happen.

Ah but deletionism and inclusionism are red herrings...yes?

The red herring is that the deletionist/inclusionist axis is the most significant philosophical divide within the Wikipedia community. That isn't to say that such a divide doesn't exist, it's just that it's not that important of one, and most Wikipedians are simply not consistently deletionist or inclusionist. There are, nonetheless, small cadres of committed deletionists and committed inclusionsts, and those cadres will gladly throw themselves into the scrum whenever one erupts around some other issue that happens to involve deletion, such as the instant matter.

[thekohser]

Anyway, those are the only blocks I've got on my record, so I'm not really hiding from them.

What about Kscottbailey, I hear from the peanut gallery?

[Kelly Martin]

Someone should call a vote to name Kirill as the new godking. That motion was the closest thing to leadership I've seen in Wikipedia since, well, ever.

[Doc glasgow]

Someone should call a vote to name Kirill as the new godking. That motion was the closest thing to leadership I've seen in Wikipedia since, well, ever.

Seconded.

I have to say, I really didn't think arbcom had this in them.

I repent and salute them.

My only problem is that I don't know what he means by "urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner". My deletions were, and continue to be, in alphabetical order starting at the longest tagged as unreferenced. Hardly chaotic.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[SDJ]

Anyway, those are the only blocks I've got on my record, so I'm not really hiding from them.

What about Kscottbailey, I hear from the peanut gallery?

Those are the only blocks I've had, and which I listed here.

[Tarc]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

The RFC will be full of sound and fury and signify nothing...as is the general nature of RFCs.
Quite a contrast from the cluster fuck last year over the Advisory Council on Project Development.

This is a very rate alignment of BOLDness, the AC, policy and the community in the right constellation.
Tis an anomaly to be sure, but one I hope we will be seeing a lot more often now.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Christmas came early (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

We now have an arbcom ruling saying that summarily deleting unsourced BLPs is NOT outside policy and the BLP (very liberally interpreted) trumphs all else.

Yes, the RFC will almost certainly be a waste of time. However, if it can come upwith an effective remedy all good and well. If it fails, then we get speedy deletion.

Removing all unsourced BLPs is really quite a small step. However, the way it has happended means all bets off in future.

As much as they will deny it, we just saw arbcom legislate on BLP (and not for the first time).

Jehochlad is bitching about it mightily on KL's talkpage.

Has the inevitable RFC been filed yet?
If so, can I has link just in case something interesting does happen in the damn thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Hochman is butthurt again? Stop the presses.

RfC link; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (T-H-L-K-D)

[SDJ]

The only reason I don't mention that username (which was disappeared into BobTheTomato) on my userpage is that I didn't necessarily want portions of my real name on-wiki, even if several people there already know it.

(This was intended to be a "Fast Reply" add to my response to Greg.)

This post has been edited by SDJ:

[Jon Awbrey]

However, that doesn't mean that an admin should be able to do anything at all and just slap the "BLP" (or "copyvio") "trump card" down on the table and thereby win the trick, which is what you get when you declare that "BLP trumps all other bureaucratic issues". There has to be both policy and process relating to how Wikipedia enforces these core values. Right now Wikipedia has very fuzzy policy and no process at all, and furthermore it has no method for adopting new policy or new process because of its idiotic attachment to "consensus governance". A solution requires getting past that impasse; until that's resolved discussions on what appropriate policy or process would be are meaningless, because they will simply never happen.

Y'see, that's just how bad things have gotten, when even the True Believers are Too Illiterati to read their own Bubble Babble Bible anymore.

Back in the Day when Wikipedia Policy Pages read sensibly enough — before I came of age to understand that Senseless Interpreters will make Utter Nonsense of even the most Sensible Policies — it used to be clearly set down (and may still be, for all that anyone bothers to read what's set down anymore) that Consensus, even in the Wikipediotic FOAF NitWork sense of the word, most decidedly DOES NOT TRUMP the Big Three content-ruling principles.

But having principles, that would be hard …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

There is one thing that I don't understand -- when Wikipedia started, why wasn't there a rule in place requiring confirmed references in BLPs? That makes no sense at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

There is one thing that I don't understand -- when Wikipedia started, why wasn't there a rule in place requiring confirmed references in BLPs? That makes no sense at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

You have to remember, at that point there was no expectation that it would amount to anything - certainly not the Google-dominating behemoth with the potential to ruin reputations that it's become.

Obviously there were mistakes made in setting up Wikipedia, but given context I think we can forgive most of them. Less forgivable is the chronic failure to correct most of these.

[Kelly Martin]

There is one thing that I don't understand -- when Wikipedia started, why wasn't there a rule in place requiring confirmed references in BLPs? That makes no sense at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Because nobody envisioned that people would deliberately add false or defamatory information to a publicly-editable encyclopedia, of course. Why require verification when you know that everyone is doing their best to write only things that are true?

[No one of consequence]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

My prediction: the deletions will continue as the BLP advocates and deletionists will interpret the motion as clear endorsement of their actions. The inclusionists will interpret the motion as a clear directive to stop the deletions, which will lead to more blocks of admins, and more demands for desysoping. Eventually (within a week, I imagine) a bona-fide wheel war will occur, and an emergency desysop will be ordered either by the ArbCom or by Jimmy himself.

Yes, I interpret the wording of the motion as, "Well done, but don't do it again until you have consensus." Not quite as brave a stance as it could have been.

[John Limey]

I have yet to see anybody (on the wiki, at least) mention the suggestion that flagged revisions should be activiated on all BLPs or at least all unwatched or unsourced BLPs. Why is this?

Because it won't work for all BLPs.

If flagged is deployed over a wide range of articles it is useless from a BLP point of view. If there are too many edits covered, then what will happen is there will be a mass of lazy reviewers, who will never check sources or do anything other than screen out obvious stuff. That will certainly spare some of wikipedia's blushes, but it will not stop real BLP harm. Anything that is obvious to the uninformed reviewer's quick glance is also obvious to the reader, and if its falsehood is obvious to the reader it can't harm the subject.

It would be a great pity if a useful tool was spent ridding wikipedia of silly vandalism.

As for on all unwatched biographies, that has been proposed. See my Targeted Flagging.

I'm calling bull. Our research at On Wikipedia research suggests that the median BLP has been edited 24 times in its whole history (and has existed over 3 years). That's about 8 edits per BLP/year or about 3.2 million BLP edits annually, which works out to 8000ish edits to BLPs daily (4ish per WP admin). You really think the average admin can't review less than 5 BLP edits per day?

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm calling bull. Our research at On Wikipedia research suggests that the median BLP has been edited 24 times in its whole history (and has existed over 3 years). That's about 8 edits per BLP/year or about 3.2 million BLP edits annually...

You can't aggregate using a median.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Kelly Martin]

Obviously there were mistakes made in setting up Wikipedia, but given context I think we can forgive most of them. Less forgivable is the chronic failure to correct most of these.

More importantly, to fail to create a framework that would allow for the possibility of correction.

In any case, Wikipedia's about page views and participation now, not about accuracy. Wikipedia's commitment to quality appears only after embarrassing press incidents, and sinks back into the murk as soon as the press attention therefrom fades away. The rest of the time it's all about quantity.

[Sarcasticidealist]

More importantly, to fail to create a framework that would allow for the possibility of correction.

That's one of the greatest failures, and the one most inclined to self-perpetuation. You can see why they didn't bother designing a workable governance system for thousands of editors when they had dozens, but you'd think that somewhere along the line they'd have noticed the need to fix it.

[dogbiscuit]

I'm calling bull. Our research at On Wikipedia research suggests that the median BLP has been edited 24 times in its whole history (and has existed over 3 years). That's about 8 edits per BLP/year or about 3.2 million BLP edits annually...

You can't aggregate using a median.

Where's PoetGuy when you need him? (Well one of his lurking identities anyhow).

[Kelly Martin]

Yes, I interpret the wording of the motion as, "Well done, but don't do it again until you have consensus." Not quite as brave a stance as it could have been.

The motion admits to being interpreted in any of several different ways even on reasonable readings, and as I've noted before Wikipedians are not noted for their reasonableness. I therefore expect that the deletions will continue by at least some admins simply because they can find support for what they want to do in the motion, and will just ignore the parts that militate against what they want to do.

Again, I don't blame Kirill. I think his action here would have been eminently reasonable if more Wikipedians were more like him: mostly rational, sensible, thinking individuals committed to Wikipedia as a project to create an encyclopedia. If he can stand up to the baying of the mobs, then he'll come out of this shining bright and just maybe things will get better, but I don't have a lot of hope for that outcome. Wikipedia mobs can be quite nasty, and Jimmy is prone to be swayed by them; it's entirely possible that the mobs will convince Jimmy to smite Kirill down, although I too rather doubt that.

Kirill, if you're reading this, my advice is to stand your ground. You know you're right; don't let the braying of lesser minds distract you from that.

As an aside, ArbCom should decide more cases in this manner.

[Jon Awbrey]

Where's PoetGuy when you need him? (Well one of his lurking identities anyhow).

Poet-Aster's competence in statistics was every bit as defective as his competence in ethics.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[John Limey]

I'm calling bull. Our research at On Wikipedia research suggests that the median BLP has been edited 24 times in its whole history (and has existed over 3 years). That's about 8 edits per BLP/year or about 3.2 million BLP edits annually...

You can't aggregate using a median.

Unfortunately, I haven't got a mean until I talk to Fact Man.

[Kelly Martin]

It will be interesting to see whether the threat of deletions resuming will be enough of a stick to convince the community to come up with a meaningful policy in this area. That seems to be a possibility, and I am seeing some posturing in that direction already. Should be interesting.

Wikipedia's governance seems to only operate in crisis; the trick to getting anything done there is to manufacture a crisis around whatever issue you want attention brought to. Makes for a pretty chaotic environment.

[Milton Roe]

I blame the "sofixit" mentality that is rampant in Wikipedia: that's one of Wikipedia's most effective ways of cutting off internal criticism. You are simply not allowed to raise concerns about any aspect of Wikipedia that you are not personally prepared to fix yourself. Since so many of Wikipedia's problems are far too large for one person to fix singlehandedly, this makes it impossible to criticize Wikipedia from within the system; the critic will just be barraged with a litany of "sofixit" demands that marginalize the critic and terminate discussion.

Yes, well, SOFIXIT if you complain, but if it's large and you start beavering away, they THEN wail about needing consensus on so large a project (as this last one on BLP). Since that's impossible to gain for large projects, you are stuck without a solution, except by deus ex machina. The machina here being at ArbCom level, now that our God-King is widely regarded as not being up to the Deus fixes.

Again it's very legalistic. You fight the state on individual cases, but changing it systematically needs the law AND sometimes federal confirmation at one of the higher levels, and who can afford that? ArbCom is WP's Supreme Court, and they're overloaded.

Congrats to them for hearing and acting on this last one, which was pretty outrageous, but at least we know this arbcom's threshhold.

[A Horse With No Name]

It will be interesting to see whether the threat of deletions resuming will be enough of a stick to convince the community to come up with a meaningful policy in this area. That seems to be a possibility, and I am seeing some posturing in that direction already. Should be interesting.

What "community"? You may have noticed that more than half of the people weighing in on this matter can charitably be described as chronic crackpots who turn up at every fight/crucifixion/scandal -- and few of them actually contribute any original articles, let alone BLPs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Wikipedia's governance seems to only operate in crisis; the trick to getting anything done there is to manufacture a crisis around whatever issue you want attention brought to. Makes for a pretty chaotic environment.

That is human nature. Real-life government is about reactive efforts, not proactive efforts, and the reaction is either overkill or underwhelming. Same thing here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[SB_Johnny]

You really think the average admin can't review less than 5 BLP edits per day?

[[WP:APHJ]]: Assume people have jobs. Or girlfriends. Or, well, more of a life than you have (probably not true, of course).

*Really* wishing I had time today to reply to 3 or 4 others, but that needed to be said.

[John Limey]

You really think the average admin can't review less than 5 BLP edits per day?

[[WP:APHJ]]: Assume people have jobs. Or girlfriends. Or, well, more of a life than you have (probably not true, of course).

*Really* wishing I had time today to reply to 3 or 4 others, but that needed to be said.

Well, the average admin spends a *lot* of time on Wikipedia daily, not sure how much, but it's definitely quite a lot. Reviewing 5 BLP edits, might take 5 minutes, tops. They're spending well more than that amount of time on WP anyway.

[Jon Awbrey]

You really think the average admin can't review less than 5 BLP edits per day?

WP:APHJ : Assume people have jobs. Or girlfriends. Or, well, more of a life than you have (probably not true, of course).

*Really* wishing I had time today to reply to 3 or 4 others, but that needed to be said.

Well, the average admin spends a *lot* of time on Wikipedia daily, not sure how much, but it's definitely quite a lot. Reviewing 5 BLP edits, might take 5 minutes, tops. They're spending well more than that amount of time on WP anyway.

It's not WP:APHJ — it's WP:GJWHF (Geeks Just Wanna Have Fun).

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[The Joy]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

The RFC will be full of sound and fury and signify nothing...as is the general nature of RFCs.
Quite a contrast from the cluster fuck last year over the Advisory Council on Project Development.

This is a very rate alignment of BOLDness, the AC, policy and the community in the right constellation.
Tis an anomaly to be sure, but one I hope we will be seeing a lot more often now.

For some reason, I'm now seeing only 5 supports. What happened? I can't see this change in the history. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

The RFC will be full of sound and fury and signify nothing...as is the general nature of RFCs.
Quite a contrast from the cluster fuck last year over the Advisory Council on Project Development.

This is a very rate alignment of BOLDness, the AC, policy and the community in the right constellation.
Tis an anomaly to be sure, but one I hope we will be seeing a lot more often now.

For some reason, I'm now seeing only 5 supports. What happened? I can't see this change in the history. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Back now. That was a strange "burp" in the system. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Alison]

And Jimmy Wales just waded in with a message of strong support for Scott's actions in deleting those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

== Thank you ==


I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of [[WP:BOLD]]. You have my support.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted to my talk page

I expected to be desysopped yesterday, seriously.

Now I have been "commended" by arbcom and thanked by Jimbo.

Oooooo, back in the wikilove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Coren wrote: the good of the project comes ahead the desires of the community. Now, in a community-driven project, "good of the project" should have no other meaning than "desires of the community": what the project wants and doesn't want should be what community wants and doesn't want. Can Coren explain his sentence? --Cyclopiatalk 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic fail.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[gomi]

Kudos to Kevin and Scott. Now, how do we get the rest of them deleted?

[Doc glasgow]

Coren wrote: the good of the project comes ahead the desires of the community. Now, in a community-driven project, "good of the project" should have no other meaning than "desires of the community": what the project wants and doesn't want should be what community wants and doesn't want. Can Coren explain his sentence? --Cyclopiatalk 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that might make perfect sense, if the project was to have a happy community. However, it tends to miss out the encyclopedia bit, the public service bit, and the sort of not screwing with the reputation of innocent people bit (no that last bit isn't really policy, just human decency).

[SDJ]

Wow. The BURO-nuts are really taking some hits. And Carcharoth looks more and more like a windbag.

This post has been edited by SDJ:

[MZMcBride]

I'm not seeing nearly enough red links here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people. Bother.

[The Adversary]

Whaw.
Stay away for a day or to...to find out that revolution has broken out, and succeeded?

I am seriously impressed. Most of all with the admins who put their tools on the line .....and then with (dare I say it?) arbcom, for swift action.

Congrats!

Coren wrote: the good of the project comes ahead the desires of the community. Now, in a community-driven project, "good of the project" should have no other meaning than "desires of the community": what the project wants and doesn't want should be what community wants and doesn't want. Can Coren explain his sentence? --Cyclopiatalk 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic fail.

Ah, it's just Cyclopia. Not yet recovered from living in Berlusconi-land. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[MBisanz]

Kudos to Kevin and Scott. Now, how do we get the rest of them deleted?

I'm not seeing nearly enough red links here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people. Bother.

Just my two cents, but with this great movement, everyone must still be careful not to become overzealous and careless with their deletions. Nothing would reverse the flow faster than one admin messing up a bunch and deleting articles that have inline links instead of <ref> tags and being beaten senseless at DRV. Those links will probably turn red and probably at a much faster rate then before, but it must still be done with due care.

[Apathetic]

I didn't turn one red, but I did source it... And unfortunately had to remove it from Category:Living people, where it probably should never have been in the first place (article seemed to have been created shortly after his death).

[The Adversary]

I'm not seeing nearly enough red links here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people. Bother.

Just my two cents, but with this great movement, everyone must still be careful not to become overzealous and careless with their deletions.<snip>

Yepp. Note that several of the bios on that list also have had references added during the last few hours/days;
no 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Allén
no 126 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorvald_Stoltenberg
<edit>...and others

[One]

And Jimmy Wales just waded in with a message of strong support for Scott's actions in deleting those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

That's hardly surprising. Jimbo is generally on the right side of BLP. Why do people here so often assume he must be wrong about everything?

[The Adversary]

Why do people here so often assume he must be wrong about everything?

Because he normally is wrong about everything? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (except BLP..)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I expected to be desysopped yesterday, seriously.

Now I have been "commended" by arbcom and thanked by Jimbo.

And of ArbCom's three WR regulars, two opposed the motion and one recused. Strange days indeed.

[MBisanz]

And Jimmy Wales just waded in with a message of strong support for Scott's actions in deleting those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

That's hardly surprising. Jimbo is generally on the right side of BLP. Why do people here so often assume he must be wrong about everything?

Realistically its the position that anyone with a significant link to a public identity or the hope of someday having a public identity has to adopt, regardless of their personal views. How many elected officials, federal or state, support lowering the drinking age or age to purchase cigarettes? I bet none. And I bet a large number of them drank or smoked when they were 18. But they realized at some point it was career suicide to adopt the viewpoint that what they did should be legalized. Most probably adopted it as a result of seeing the statistics on lung cancer, drunk driving, etc. But I bet some number did it because they realized it is nearly impossible to be any kind of public figure whose pay depends on people liking them.

What position were you expecting Jimbo to take Alison? That it is more important to publicize information of unknown quality or that we must ensure that at least what we are saying has been said by someone else? I really can't see any other answer that he could give at a Q&A speech that wouldn't ensure a lack of future speeches.

[Emperor]

And Jimmy Wales just waded in with a message of strong support for Scott's actions in deleting those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

That's hardly surprising. Jimbo is generally on the right side of BLP. Why do people here so often assume he must be wrong about everything?

Jimmy Wales, August 8, 2008, in the Wall Street Journal,

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean why not, right?"

[One]

Because he normally is wrong about everything? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (except BLP..)

In my book, BLP is the only one that matters, and he's right on it much more than "the community." If Jimbo actually was God-King, I have no doubt that Wikipedia would be more ethical than it currently is. He's a good guy on this issue.

Incidentally, so is David Gerard. He's not recently been a fan of ArbCom, but on BLP he is with ArbCom 100%. This is a direct quote, and it's a beauty:

"Community consensus" isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.

- d.

PTWD

This post has been edited by One:

[Milton Roe]

I expected to be desysopped yesterday, seriously.

Now I have been "commended" by arbcom and thanked by Jimbo.

And of ArbCom's three WR regulars, two opposed the motion and one recused. Strange days indeed.

Yeah. An admin shouldn't have to risk desysopping to do something morally right and WP:BOLD.

Kudos to Jimbo on this. I can't fairly criticize him when he does wrong thing, if I don't acknowlege it when he does the right thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Why IS it so annoying when turkeys do the right thing? Like GW Bush weighing in for Haitian relief? And saying what needed to be said about cash, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Milton

P.S. Incredible story: Bush got criticized for his "just send cash" line. But there's a lot of potential help for Haiti on the other side of the island of Hispanola, in the Dominican Republic. But the DR isn't rich, so it can't send a lot of those physical goods, without outside money. But if you send "electrons" from your bank account to DR, they can easily truck goods to Haiti, around the fly-in bottleneck. You can send one can of soup directly, or for the same cost you can send its cost to DR, where 10 cans can be trucked over the Haitian border. How hard is this to understand? This is a life-saving effort, not showing you care by picking out the right Christmas present with a Hallmark Card. Geez, Louise.

[gomi]

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly surprising. Jimbo is generally on the right side of BLP. Why do people here so often assume he must be wrong about everything?

Because he normally is wrong about everything? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (except BLP..)

Perhaps because Jimbo is still the only person with the ability to solve the situation once and for all, by fiat, and he won't do so. What goodwill he's trying to preserve I don't know.

Incidentally, so is David Gerard.

"Community consensus" isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal playground enjoying something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.

Even an old calendar is right every eight years or so. (The stopped clock cliche being too polite to Wavey Davey.)

[Milton Roe]

Incidentally, so is David Gerard. He's not recently been a fan of ArbCom, but on BLP he is with ArbCom 100%. This is a direct quote, and it's a beauty:

"Community consensus" isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.

- d.

PTWD

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Go, Gerard! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[MBisanz]

One item on my wishlist for deletion is the contents of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

28,000 pages at last count of useless pages of indef blocked vandals. I bet Adam Matthew Cox is very happy that Wikipedia is broadcasting to the world that four months ago, he or someone impersonating him, vandalized the Stamford School article and was blocked on Wikipedia for it. And of course, remembering that fact is very vital for Wikipedia's existence!

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Malleus]

P.S. Incredible story: Bush got criticized for his "just send cash" line. But there's a lot of potential help for Haiti on the other side of the island of Hipanola, in the Dominican Republic. But the DR isn't rich, so it can't send a lot of those physical goods, without outside money.

They can equally easily keep some of those dollars for themselves.

[Juliancolton]

[+] Proposed deletion as of 21 January 2010 (269 P)

[Milton Roe]

P.S. Incredible story: Bush got criticized for his "just send cash" line. But there's a lot of potential help for Haiti on the other side of the island of Hipanola, in the Dominican Republic. But the DR isn't rich, so it can't send a lot of those physical goods, without outside money.

They can equally easily keep some of those dollars for themselves.

Don't understand your point. The point is the money can be used to buy supplies in the DR, and move them the short distance to Haiti.

One item on my wishlist for deletion is the contents of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

28,000 pages at last count of useless pages of indef blocked vandals. I bet Adam Matthew Cox is very happy that Wikipedia is broadcasting to the world that four months ago, he or someone impersonating him, vandalized the Stamford School article and was blocked on Wikipedia for it. And of course, remembering that fact is very vital for Wikipedia's existence!

I don't agree. Those banned accounts and their records are rap sheets and M.O. records for people out on the street again under another name. They'd be needed to catch people like Mantanmoreland, even if we fixed up the IP problem. Especially then

[MBisanz]

One item on my wishlist for deletion is the contents of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

28,000 pages at last count of useless pages of indef blocked vandals. I bet Adam Matthew Cox is very happy that Wikipedia is broadcasting to the world that four months ago, he or someone impersonating him, vandalized the Stamford School article and was blocked on Wikipedia for it. And of course, remembering that fact is very vital for Wikipedia's existence!

I don't agree. Those banned accounts and their records are rap sheets and M.O. records for people out on the street again under another name. They'd be needed to catch people like Mantanmoreland, even if we fixed up the IP problem. Especially then

Sockpuppets aren't included in that category. It's only hit and run accounts.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Cla68]

Kirill's motion now has the 9 votes it needed to pass.

My prediction: the deletions will continue as the BLP advocates and deletionists will interpret the motion as clear endorsement of their actions. The inclusionists will interpret the motion as a clear directive to stop the deletions, which will lead to more blocks of admins, and more demands for desysoping. Eventually (within a week, I imagine) a bona-fide wheel war will occur, and an emergency desysop will be ordered either by the ArbCom or by Jimmy himself.

Yes, I interpret the wording of the motion as, "Well done, but don't do it again until you have consensus." Not quite as brave a stance as it could have been.

Well, if the RfC fails to establish a consensus on how to handle the issue, then the ArbCom is saying that mass deletions may resume, IMO.

[Milton Roe]

One item on my wishlist for deletion is the contents of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

28,000 pages at last count of useless pages of indef blocked vandals. I bet Adam Matthew Cox is very happy that Wikipedia is broadcasting to the world that four months ago, he or someone impersonating him, vandalized the Stamford School article and was blocked on Wikipedia for it. And of course, remembering that fact is very vital for Wikipedia's existence!

I don't agree. Those banned accounts and their records are rap sheets and M.O. records for people out on the street again under another name. They'd be needed to catch people like Mantanmoreland, even if we fixed up the IP problem. Especially then

Sockpuppets aren't included in that category. It's only hit and run accounts.

Well, no reason to publicly host records of SPA vandal accounts with very few changes made by them. All you're really interested in THERE, is the IP associated with the thing. I wonder if that IS saved? Somehow, with all the wailing about checkuser being good only for 3 months, I get the idea that the IP's from SPA vandal accounts are not saved at the time they're indef-blocked. Can somebody confirm? If so, that's a missed opportunity which would cost very, very little in storage space. Delete everything but the list of contribs, with IP attached, and have it "offline" to the public (which doesn't need to see it), but searchable by IP number, to admins. How much can that cost, spacewise?

[The Adversary]

Because he normally is wrong about everything? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (except BLP..)

In my book, BLP is the only one that matters, and he's right on it much more than "the community." If Jimbo actually was God-King, I have no doubt that Wikipedia would be more ethical than it currently is. He's a good guy on this issue.

"only one that matters"? There I completely disagree with you. Very important, yes, but not the only one. Eg; the international conflict-areas articles on WP are often a complete disgrace, with articles Stalin would be proud of. And Jimbo has showed himself so completely clueless about issues (Matanmoreland, Essjay, appointing Jayjg to arb.com) that I somehow don't trust him to sort things out here, even if he was God-King.

Anyway; it is dead late here and this is another (very interesting!) subject. If you like; please start another thread about "what next?, or something ..I think Kellys observation that " "anyone can edit" is a great way to start an encyclopedia, but not to finish it", could be a very interesting starting-point.

[Jaranda]

Give me a list of Baseball, Basketball or Football BLPs, and I'll "rescue" them, pity I wasn't around for the fun.

[No one of consequence]

Well, no reason to publicly host records of SPA vandal accounts with very few changes made by them. All you're really interested in THERE, is the IP associated with the thing. I wonder if that IS saved? Somehow, with all the wailing about checkuser being good only for 3 months, I get the idea that the IP's from SPA vandal accounts are not saved at the time they're indef-blocked. Can somebody confirm? If so, that's a missed opportunity which would cost very, very little in storage space. Delete everything but the list of contribs, with IP attached, and have it "offline" to the public (which doesn't need to see it), but searchable by IP number, to admins. How much can that cost, spacewise?

It's not routinely done. Most IPs are dynamic enough that knowing that a one-hit vandal today is on the same IP as a one-hit vandal from a year ago is not really worth knowing. If today's one-hit vandal is on the same IP as a dozen other recent vandals, then something usually will be done.

[Jaranda]

Bleh do articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Adams_(basketball) really need sourcing?

[MookieZ]

Bleh do articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Adams_(basketball) really need sourcing?

It already has a link to basketball-reference.com in the infobox. Does that count as a reference? There's nothing in the article that isn't included in that link.

[MBisanz]

Bleh do articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Adams_(basketball) really need sourcing?

Is it really so hard?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Bleh do articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Adams_(basketball) really need sourcing?

In all the excitement about sources, I think we sometimes overvalue them; the problem isn't unsourced BLPs per se, but there being too many BLPs for The Community to manage. The unsourced ones are the ones that people clearly aren't paying much attention to, so they're the logical ones to eliminate. Besides that, unsourced articles are more likely to also be inaccurate, though not wildly more likely. But it's not as though the addition of sources magically changes an article from a bad one to a good one.

[Cla68]

Bleh do articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Adams_(basketball) really need sourcing?

Yes! MBisanz already rescued the article, but here's a source from Infotrac:

Mallozzi, Vincent M. "BASKETBALL; Legend of the Playground.(Sports Desk)." New York Times 11 Nov. 1990

This article covers some coaching work that Adams did after retiring from being an active player.

That's how easy it is.

[Milton Roe]

Well, no reason to publicly host records of SPA vandal accounts with very few changes made by them. All you're really interested in THERE, is the IP associated with the thing. I wonder if that IS saved? Somehow, with all the wailing about checkuser being good only for 3 months, I get the idea that the IP's from SPA vandal accounts are not saved at the time they're indef-blocked. Can somebody confirm? If so, that's a missed opportunity which would cost very, very little in storage space. Delete everything but the list of contribs, with IP attached, and have it "offline" to the public (which doesn't need to see it), but searchable by IP number, to admins. How much can that cost, spacewise?

It's not routinely done. Most IPs are dynamic enough that knowing that a one-hit vandal today is on the same IP as a one-hit vandal from a year ago is not really worth knowing. If today's one-hit vandal is on the same IP as a dozen other recent vandals, then something usually will be done.

I'm afraid your statement that most IPs are too "dynamic" to mean anything needs a {{fact}} tag. If that were true, dynamic DNS server ISPs would not bother WP at all, since there exist so few static ones anyway. But they do bother WP a lot. Tor networks (where this is done deliberately) bother them even more, to the point that autoconformation for nameusers extends to months rather than days if they use one.

My own IPs (for example) are static-- they are not even sticky since both have been the same for years, though many power outages. One is a standard DSL at work and the other is picked off a fiberoptic line at my home. I don't really think I'm the only guy in the world that uses Verizon.

Many a sock I've encountered on WP has used the same IP for years, revealing it accidently when they edit without logging in.

Yes, of course these things aren't fingerprints-- they're more like suspect descriptions. They're useful when they match in the context of other things that match, but nearly worthless when used alone. But they are info still worth keeping, and I'm surprised if WP doesn't do it for indef blocked vandals. IF they don't, they don't, but I'm going to need more convincing if they don't, that they wouldn't gain if they DID.

[Kelly Martin]

Reviewing 5 BLP edits, might take 5 minutes, tops.

Not if you want the review to more than trivially superficial.

That's hardly surprising. Jimbo is generally on the right side of BLP.

Jimbo is only superficially on the "right side" of BLP: he will support efforts to protect the interests of living subjects, but only to the extent that it doesn't interfere with his personal interest in keeping Wikipedia's page views and participation rate high. If forced to choose between protecting living subjects and keeping participation up, Jimmy will reliably choose the latter.

In my book, BLP is the only one that matters, and he's right on it much more than "the community." If Jimbo actually was God-King, I have no doubt that Wikipedia would be more ethical than it currently is. He's a good guy on this issue.

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

[No one of consequence]

Well, no reason to publicly host records of SPA vandal accounts with very few changes made by them. All you're really interested in THERE, is the IP associated with the thing. I wonder if that IS saved? Somehow, with all the wailing about checkuser being good only for 3 months, I get the idea that the IP's from SPA vandal accounts are not saved at the time they're indef-blocked. Can somebody confirm? If so, that's a missed opportunity which would cost very, very little in storage space. Delete everything but the list of contribs, with IP attached, and have it "offline" to the public (which doesn't need to see it), but searchable by IP number, to admins. How much can that cost, spacewise?

It's not routinely done. Most IPs are dynamic enough that knowing that a one-hit vandal today is on the same IP as a one-hit vandal from a year ago is not really worth knowing. If today's one-hit vandal is on the same IP as a dozen other recent vandals, then something usually will be done.

I'm afraid your statement that most IPs are too "dynamic" to mean anything needs a {{fact}} tag. If that were true, dynamic DNS server ISPs would not bother WP at all, since there exist so few static ones anyway. But they do bother WP a lot. Tor networks (where this is done deliberately) bother them even more, to the point that autoconformation for nameusers extends to months rather than days if they use one.

My own IPs (for example) are static-- they are not even sticky since both have been the same for years, though many power outages. One is a standard DSL at work and the other is picked off a fiberoptic line at my home. I don't really think I'm the only guy in the world that uses Verizon.

Many a sock I've encountered on WP has used the same IP for years, revealing it accidently when they edit without logging in.

Yes, of course these things aren't fingerprints-- they're more like suspect descriptions. They're useful when they match in the context of other things that match, but nearly worthless when used alone. But they are info still worth keeping, and I'm surprised if WP doesn't do it for indef blocked vandals. IF they don't, they don't, but I'm going to need more convincing if they don't, that they wouldn't gain if they DID.

Certainly the benefits of recording the IPs of vandals varies widely depending on the situation. There is certainly no master list of IPs of blocked vandals collected by the software, or if there is, its so secret that I don't know about it.

Checkusers do often maintain private notes on some vandals, and information can be inferred from the checkuser log even if the original records are no longer available.

[Jon Awbrey]

Reviewing 5 BLP edits, might take 5 minutes, tops.

Not if you want the review to more than trivially superficial.

That's hardly surprising. Jimbo is generally on the right side of BLP.

Jimbo is only superficially on the "right side" of BLP: he will support efforts to protect the interests of living subjects, but only to the extent that it doesn't interfere with his personal interest in keeping Wikipedia's page views and participation rate high. If forced to choose between protecting living subjects and keeping participation up, Jimmy will reliably choose the latter.

In my book, BLP is the only one that matters, and he's right on it much more than "the community." If Jimbo actually was God-King, I have no doubt that Wikipedia would be more ethical than it currently is. He's a good guy on this issue.

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

Some of us have long enough memories to recall that we've been through this bit once or thrice before. But Wikipediots have the attention spans of gnats, and the memories of marshmallow sauce.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[thekohser]

Child of Midnight is looking to keep me famous, but he makes a big point of how wonderful this unsourced biography is.

I found a source, from Sue Gardner's own CBC, no less. Could one of you great biography fixers please "fix" this one?

[SDJ]

It sounds like he thinks we're all somehow your meatpuppets. Very odd.

[Jon Awbrey]

It sounds like he thinks we're all somehow your meatpuppets. Very odd.

One person's meatpuppet is another person's consensus.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Certainly the benefits of recording the IPs of vandals varies widely depending on the situation. There is certainly no master list of IPs of blocked vandals collected by the software, or if there is, its so secret that I don't know about it.

Checkusers do often maintain private notes on some vandals, and information can be inferred from the checkuser log even if the original records are no longer available.

You know, this sounds like a job for a database. You could even use an electronic computer, if you know somebody who has access to one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Computer.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Certainly the benefits of recording the IPs of vandals varies widely depending on the situation. There is certainly no master list of IPs of blocked vandals collected by the software, or if there is, its so secret that I don't know about it.

Checkusers do often maintain private notes on some vandals, and information can be inferred from the checkuser log even if the original records are no longer available.

You know, this sounds like a job for a database. You could even use an electronic computer, if you know somebody who has access to one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Computer.gif)

I still wear white gloves and pearls when working at mine, but I do miss those extra sockets for the coffee pot and toaster.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[SDJ]

Now, we're "book burners" for placing PRODs on these articles. The astounding stupidity of some of these people beggars belief.

[Jon Awbrey]

Now, we're "book burners" for placing PRODs on these articles. The astounding stupidity of some of these people beggars belief.

Spend enough time there and you'll come to regard it as normal.

So watch out for that …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[SDJ]

Been there over three years. This BLP thing is "bringing out the stupid" in ways I've not seen before.

I think my favorite part of this whole surreal last 36 hours or so was when Herbie (Gwh) accused Lar of climbing the Reichstag in his Spidey suit, and basically threatened to block him for the deletions that Lar made.

[Casliber]

Give me a list of Baseball, Basketball or Football BLPs, and I'll "rescue" them, pity I wasn't around for the fun.

I am sure there are plenty to find. Australian Politicians were among some early (almost) scalps..

I'd like to see a prize for the most famous non-reffed BLP that has been (almost) scalped thus far...this one which is a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia was amusing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (sorry Firs) Anyone more famous turned up?

[Milton Roe]

Been there over three years. This BLP thing is "bringing out the stupid" in ways I've not seen before.

I think my favorite part of this whole surreal last 36 hours or so was when Herbie (Gwh) accused Lar of climbing the Reichstag in his Spidey suit, and basically threatened to block him for the deletions that Lar made.

Mine, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

But as horrible as those hissing opossums may look, if you poke them, they roll over and play dead.

I AM GEORGE WILLLAM HERBERT, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL!! WHO ARE YOU?

If you please, I am Lar -- the small and meek....



Humbug! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Casliber]

Heck, wow, there's former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima as completely unreferenced. Someone could PROD that, that'd be more famous I reckon. I'd source it but not too familiar with Austrian sources (despite similarity in name to Australia)
Cas

[SDJ]

Heck, wow, there's former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima as completely unreferenced. Someone could PROD that, that'd be more famous I reckon. I'd source it but not too familiar with Austrian sources (despite similarity in name to Australia)
Cas

If PRODing them gets someone to do something about it, where's the harm?

Been there over three years. This BLP thing is "bringing out the stupid" in ways I've not seen before.

I think my favorite part of this whole surreal last 36 hours or so was when Herbie (Gwh) accused Lar of climbing the Reichstag in his Spidey suit, and basically threatened to block him for the deletions that Lar made.

Mine, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

But as horrible as those hissing opossums may look, if you poke them, they roll over and play dead.

I AM GEORGE WILLLAM HERBERT, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL!! WHO ARE YOU?

If you please, I am Lar -- the small and meek....



Humbug! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

He went back into his hole (IRC, I would assume) after he whined to Mommy (ANI) that I should be blocked for personal attacks, and was immediately rebuffed.

[SDJ]

On a side note, I think Ikip might actually have lost his mind. His attachment to unsourced BLPs is a bit disturbing.

[Milton Roe]

Now, we're "book burners" for placing PRODs on these articles. The astounding stupidity of some of these people beggars belief.

Well, the site that PRODs unsourced BLPs will sooner or later get 'round to PRODing real people themselves! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Depend on it. We're not kidding!

So you see, all this outcry against liquidating deficient BLPs has the best of humanistic intentions, because you know historically where it's bound to go. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/winky.gif)

[radek]

There is one thing that I don't understand -- when Wikipedia started, why wasn't there a rule in place requiring confirmed references in BLPs? That makes no sense at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

It's called "AGF". You know, like "Assume everyone gets a pony".

Heck, wow, there's former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima as completely unreferenced. Someone could PROD that, that'd be more famous I reckon. I'd source it but not too familiar with Austrian sources (despite similarity in name to Australia)
Cas

There's quite a buttload of pretty famous Polish people (well... as famous as Polish people get) on the list as well. The "Polish Hillary Clinton" Jolanta Kwasniewska's on there.

[Cla68]

Heck, wow, there's former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima as completely unreferenced. Someone could PROD that, that'd be more famous I reckon. I'd source it but not too familiar with Austrian sources (despite similarity in name to Australia)
Cas

I fixed it.

[Milton Roe]

There is one thing that I don't understand -- when Wikipedia started, why wasn't there a rule in place requiring confirmed references in BLPs? That makes no sense at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

It's called "AGF". You know, like "Assume everyone gets a pony".

Either that, or the usual: Alarmists Give Fears, Authorities Guarantee Fixes, ArbCom Generates Flatulence, Appeals Go Flat, Administration Gathers Fools, Articles Guide Fatheads, AfD Guards Flakes, Authors Greet Failure, Adolescents Grip Foreskins...

You can see where this ultimately leads, I suppose: Anarchy Grows Following, Assholes Grab Foundation, Alison Goes Fishing, Attorney Godwin Flounders, and finally bio subjects All Get F***ed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

Is it too unreasonable to think that administrators who refuse to clean up the unsourced BLPs that they themselves created ought not to be administrators anymore? Apparently people think so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._NuclearWarfare

It has been agreed upon that blatant violations of the most important policies of the site, such as the copyright policy, are incompatible with adminship. Just last week, we had an administrator who had repeatedly violated that copyright policy resign under pressure, and there is a pending Arbitration case over a similar matter. It would probably be commonly agreed upon that the copyright policy and the BLP policy are the two most important policies on the site. Creation of unsourced biographies of living persons has largely been agreed upon to be a violation of WP:BLP. Therefore, the repeated introduction of unsourced BLPs or the failure to clean up unsourced biographies of living persons that one had created a while back after a reasonable amount of time is a violation of WP:BLP. I would submit that the community cannot fully trust administrators who violate the BLP policy.

Would be interested in hearing what you guys think.

[SDJ]

Well, I was just having a look at Carcharoth's statement in opposition to the motion. That guy can use more words to say less of any value than anyone I've ever seen.

[Cla68]

Well, I was just having a look at Carcharoth's statement in opposition to the motion. That guy can use more words to say less of any value than anyone I've ever seen.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[SDJ]

From Cyclopia's last rant on Jimbo's talkpage, I think that -- instead of being meatpuppets of Greg Kohs, as was first implied by CoM -- we're all actually meatpuppets of Lar.

This post has been edited by SDJ:

[A Horse With No Name]

If you please, I am Lar -- the small and meek....

Lar...meek? Small? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

The idea of Lar as Judy Garland fries the mind - I'm surprised Liza and Lorna don't sue you for that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Though in view of the monomaniacal fixations piling up in this single corner of Wikipedia, there is a Judy number that is a better fit to the new wave of BLP obsession:




Here's to all the Johnny One-Notes on Wikipedia! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Child of Midnight is looking to keep me famous...

Maybe he thinks you're a slab of bacon? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

You can see where this ultimately leads, I suppose: Anarchy Grows Following, Assholes Grab Foundation, Alison Goes Fishing...

Stop right there! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Lar]

Heck, wow, there's former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima as completely unreferenced. Someone could PROD that, that'd be more famous I reckon. I'd source it but not too familiar with Austrian sources (despite similarity in name to Australia)
Cas

Our Austrian exchange student came with a tee that said "there are no kangaroos in Austria" so apparently the confusion is widespread.

If you please, I am Lar -- the small and meek....

Small?
Meek?
Judy Garland workalike?

What have you been smoking... and why are you not sharing?

Either that, or the usual: Alarmists Give Fears, Authorities Guarantee Fixes, ArbCom Generates Flatulence, Appeals Go Flat, Administration Gathers Fools, Articles Guide Fatheads, AfD Guards Flakes, Authors Greet Failure, Adolescents Grip Foreskins...

You can see where this ultimately leads, I suppose: Anarchy Grows Following, Assholes Grab Foundation, Alison Goes Fishing, Attorney Godwin Flounders, and finally bio subjects All Get F***ed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

That's some very impressive backronymization ... did you ever work for IBM ?

From Cyclopia's last rant on Jimbo's talkpage, I think that -- instead of being meatpuppets of Greg Kohs, as was first implied by CoM -- we're all actually meatpuppets of Lar.

Except for Horsey and Jon

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Someone should call a vote to name Kirill as the new godking. That motion was the closest thing to leadership I've seen in Wikipedia since, well, ever.

Seconded.

I have to say, I really didn't think arbcom had this in them.

I repent and salute them.

I saw Kirill take a small, moribund project and turn it into a powerhouse. And when that project started to become too large and unwieldy and came into conflict with smaller projects, I helped him to reorganize it so it would remain united and operate more effectively. It was one of my proudest moments on WP and probably my greatest, lasting contribution.

Anyone who has worked with Kirill knows his vast capacity for taking the thoughtful initiative. So color me unsurprised by this in the least.

Thirded.

Ah but deletionism and inclusionism are red herrings...yes?

The red herring is that the deletionist/inclusionist axis is the most significant philosophical divide within the Wikipedia community. That isn't to say that such a divide doesn't exist, it's just that it's not that important of one, and most Wikipedians are simply not consistently deletionist or inclusionist. There are, nonetheless, small cadres of committed deletionists and committed inclusionsts, and those cadres will gladly throw themselves into the scrum whenever one erupts around some other issue that happens to involve deletion, such as the instant matter.

So in otherwords- Deletionistas Vs Inclusionistas is yet another Wiki mini game...except for a fanatical few.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Jehochlad is bitching about it mightily on KL's talkpage.

Has the inevitable RFC been filed yet?
If so, can I has link just in case something interesting does happen in the damn thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Hochman is butthurt again? Stop the presses.

RfC link; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (T-H-L-K-D)

Indeed, he should use better protection.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
Thanks for the linkage. Predictably the RFC is already a chaotic mess...but (butt) any consensus that can be discerned from it, so far, would seem to support our heroes' actions.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Yes, well, SOFIXIT if you complain, but if it's large and you start beavering away, they THEN wail about needing consensus on so large a project (as this last one on BLP). Since that's impossible to gain for large projects, you are stuck without a solution, except by deus ex machina. The machina here being at ArbCom level, now that our God-King is widely regarded as not being up to the Deus fixes.

Newsflash:

Emperor is a streaker!

Wizard revealed to be man behind curtain!

Dad unable to fix water heater!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif)

[SDJ]

Chillum has now weighed in against my PRODing at my talkpage. It's an interesting discussion. And by "interesting", I mean filled with bloviating and impotent threats of blocking from Chillum, as well as some kind of odd chirping from Off2riorob and Hut. Interestingly, none of them are actually interested in sourcing the PRODed articles.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Posted to my talk page

I expected to be desysopped yesterday, seriously.

Now I have been "commended" by arbcom and thanked by Jimbo.

Oooooo, back in the wikilove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[carbuncle]

Chillum has now weighed in against my PRODing at my talkpage. It's an interesting discussion. And by "interesting", I mean filled with bloviating and impotent threats of blocking from Chillum, as well as some kind of odd chirping from Off2riorob and Hut. Interestingly, none of them are actually interested in sourcing the PRODed articles.

Off2riorob has been very active lately at the BLP noticeboard, which is worrying given their comments on that userpage.

[One]

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

So no drink for me then?

I stand by that; it's basically state of nature. Any sort of management would be better than the status quo. Prerequisite for him to be a tyrant is that he actually does something. If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

[MBisanz]

I wonder if I should expect that in the future the regulars over here at WR will give the arbs who thrust their heads down on the chopping block in passing this motion any kind of positive reinforcement or if it will be the usual baying, taunting, and outing?

[Jaranda]

[[William E. Brown]] should be speedied.

[Jon Awbrey]

If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

But his tyranny does bear a lose relationship to his talk …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

So no drink for me then?

I stand by that; it's basically state of nature. Any sort of management would be better than the status quo. Prerequisite for him to be a tyrant is that he actually does something. If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

There's truth in all of this.

Wikipedia has no leadership. If Wikipedia had leadership, any leadership, it would be better off. Of course, it would be better still if it had good leadership.

Jimbo is the only person who could exercise leadership. He does not. It would be better if he did.

However, it is equally true that the reason Wikipedia has no leadership is that Jimbo (as creator) designed it that way. The deity then became an absent monarch and there was no direction.

Jimbo is (ironically) the only possible saviour; a pretty unlikely saviour; and the one who damned Wikipedia to need a saviour.

He is the only hope, and although just about any other hope would be better, but there is no other.

[Lar]

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

So no drink for me then?

I stand by that; it's basically state of nature. Any sort of management would be better than the status quo. Prerequisite for him to be a tyrant is that he actually does something. If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

There's truth in all of this.

Wikipedia has no leadership. If Wikipedia had leadership, any leadership, it would be better off. Of course, it would be better still if it had good leadership.

Jimbo is the only person who could exercise leadership. He does not. It would be better if he did.

However, it is equally true that the reason Wikipedia has no leadership is that Jimbo (as creator) designed it that way. The deity then became an absent monarch and there was no direction.

Jimbo is (ironically) the only possible saviour; a pretty unlikely saviour; and the one who damned Wikipedia to need a saviour.

He is the only hope, and although just about any other hope would be better, but there is no other.

Maybe so. Or maybe ArbCom, if it consistently shows leadership, and if we all pull together as a team and stand behind them, could step into the vacuum.

It's not likely but it's possible.

Did I just say "if we all pull together as a team" ??? WTF. Never mind.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

So no drink for me then?

I stand by that; it's basically state of nature. Any sort of management would be better than the status quo. Prerequisite for him to be a tyrant is that he actually does something. If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

There's truth in all of this.

Wikipedia has no leadership. If Wikipedia had leadership, any leadership, it would be better off. Of course, it would be better still if it had good leadership.

Jimbo is the only person who could exercise leadership. He does not. It would be better if he did.

However, it is equally true that the reason Wikipedia has no leadership is that Jimbo (as creator) designed it that way. The deity then became an absent monarch and there was no direction.

Jimbo is (ironically) the only possible saviour; a pretty unlikely saviour; and the one who damned Wikipedia to need a saviour.

He is the only hope, and although just about any other hope would be better, but there is no other.

Help me Obi-Wan-Jimbobi, you're my only hope!
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

A Jimbo who exercises leadership and takes responsibility is a Larry Sanger.
So WP looks doomed, afterall...

I've made no secret in the past that my ideal savior for the whole Wiki enterprise would be James Burke.

But I don't see that happening, so I'd settle for Sergey and the other Larry.

[MBisanz]

Wow, my respect for you just took a big whack. Wikipedia's current lack of ethics are a direct outgrowth of Jimbo's own lack of ethics. Jimbo talks the talk but almost never walks the walk; surely you've picked up on that by now.

So no drink for me then?

I stand by that; it's basically state of nature. Any sort of management would be better than the status quo. Prerequisite for him to be a tyrant is that he actually does something. If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

There's truth in all of this.

Wikipedia has no leadership. If Wikipedia had leadership, any leadership, it would be better off. Of course, it would be better still if it had good leadership.

Jimbo is the only person who could exercise leadership. He does not. It would be better if he did.

However, it is equally true that the reason Wikipedia has no leadership is that Jimbo (as creator) designed it that way. The deity then became an absent monarch and there was no direction.

Jimbo is (ironically) the only possible saviour; a pretty unlikely saviour; and the one who damned Wikipedia to need a saviour.

He is the only hope, and although just about any other hope would be better, but there is no other.

Maybe so. Or maybe ArbCom, if it consistently shows leadership, and if we all pull together as a team and stand behind them, could step into the vacuum.

It's not likely but it's possible.

Did I just say "if we all pull together as a team" ??? WTF. Never mind.

Maybe if we just stop taunting, cursing, and outing them, that would be an acceptable movement.

[A Horse With No Name]

Maybe so. Or maybe ArbCom, if it consistently shows leadership, and if we all pull together as a team and stand behind them, could step into the vacuum.

Why would you want to step into a vacuum? Wouldn't everyone get dirty? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

In any event, we can't pull together as a a team -- half of us on WR aren't officially allowed on the team. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Now at the risk of being really dumb - why not just amend policy to read: "No biography of a living person can be published on Wikipedia without a minimum of two references that confirm to WP:RS policy"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Now back to vacuums -- Lar, can you do this?

[Lar]

Maybe if we just stop taunting, cursing, and outing them, that would be an acceptable movement.

Who's "we", Kimosabe?

I don't out anybody. At least not so far this week.

[thekohser]

Yes, let's pull together as a team.

Restore admin account Cool3, and I promise to never again poke, taunt, ridicule, or criticize any of the current sitting ArbCom members.

[gomi]

Or maybe ArbCom, if it consistently shows leadership, and if we all pull together as a team and stand behind them, could step into the vacuum. ... It's not likely but it's possible. ... Did I just say "if we all pull together as a team" ??? WTF. Never mind.

Heh. You also said "if ArbCom ... consistently shows leadership". That's like saying "if the Sun ... consistently rises in the west" or "if this coin, when flipped, consistently lands on its edge". Let me know how that works out for you.

Restore admin account Cool3, and I promise to never again poke, taunt, ridicule, or criticize any of the current sitting ArbCom members.

Greg, you know you can't promise that. Your very presence on the face of the earth taunts and ridicules ArbCom! Work it!

[MBisanz]

Maybe if we just stop taunting, cursing, and outing them, that would be an acceptable movement.

Who's "we", Kimosabe?

I don't out anybody. At least not so far this week.

"We" as in the WR editorship.

[Greaser]

(IMG:http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae116/sonoffonz/blpwiki.gif)

[Viridae]

Heck, wow, there's former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima as completely unreferenced. Someone could PROD that, that'd be more famous I reckon. I'd source it but not too familiar with Austrian sources (despite similarity in name to Australia)
Cas

Our Austrian exchange student came with a tee that said "there are no kangaroos in Austria" so apparently the confusion is widespread.
Except for Horsey and Jon

Hahaha. I want one that says "There are Kangaroos in Australia", and then we can walk around together and get weird looks.

[tarantino]

It's good that you all started doing something, but it is really a small first step. As Doc says, many more need to be eliminated so that the rest can all be reliably managed.

There's 380,000 biographies with references and a large fraction of those are real crap too. If it really does only take 5 minutes per biography to verify that the subject is noteworthy and check or add references (which I seriously doubt), that's still almost 4 man years of work that needs doing.

In the mean time there are hundreds if not thousands of biographies like Bambang Marsono (T-H-L-K-D) languishing about.

[Juliancolton]

(IMG:http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae116/sonoffonz/blpwiki.gif)

Classy.

[A Horse With No Name]

In the mean time there are hundreds if not thousands of biographies like Bambang Marsono (T-H-L-K-D) languishing about.

When Tarantino talks, people listen! Right after posting this, Snuffleupagus deleted the page! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[tarantino]

In the mean time there are hundreds if not thousands of biographies like Bambang Marsono (T-H-L-K-D) languishing about.

When Tarantino talks, people listen! Right after posting this, Snuffleupagus deleted the page! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It's had been in that condition for 2 1/2 years. If you want to see it, Microsoft has a copy on their Wikipedia mirror.

http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Bambang_Marsono

[Kelly Martin]

So no drink for me then?

I stand by that; it's basically state of nature. Any sort of management would be better than the status quo. Prerequisite for him to be a tyrant is that he actually does something. If his hypothetical tyranny bore even a lose relationship to his talk, we would be better off.

I won't argue that; a badly managed dictatorship might be marginally better than pure anarchy, although that's a difficult case to make, I suspect, and probably depends on the relative values assigned to certain intangibles.

In any case, you're still entitled to the drink. You should be able to figure out how to contact me if you're actually interested. It's not like I keep my contact information all that hidden.

[Rhindle]

There's truth in all of this.

Wikipedia has no leadership. If Wikipedia had leadership, any leadership, it would be better off. Of course, it would be better still if it had good leadership.

Jimbo is the only person who could exercise leadership. He does not. It would be better if he did.

However, it is equally true that the reason Wikipedia has no leadership is that Jimbo (as creator) designed it that way. The deity then became an absent monarch and there was no direction.

Jimbo is (ironically) the only possible saviour; a pretty unlikely saviour; and the one who damned Wikipedia to need a saviour.

He is the only hope, and although just about any other hope would be better, but there is no other.

I agree. After everyone contributes their views on a particular proposal someone(or some group) should be a leader and make an actual decision. It is impossible to make everybody happy, or even 2/3rds of a large group happy. Jimbo can just say "yes, I'm going to do it" or "no, I'm not going to do it" and either way someone will bitch about it. How about not worrying about what everyone thinks and just be a leader. Inevitable people will be upset so why not create WP:BITCH and let disgruntled editors let some steam out, air their grievances and then go back to editing?

[SDJ]

Well, now Chillum is stirring up the drama by starting an ANI about me, and the usual suspects (Durova, Wikidemon, Off2riorob) are piling in. I'm quite certain that someone will pull the block trigger shortly. I really don't get why PRODing unsourced BLPs is so controversial, but I'm back to it now (unless they've ALREADY blocked me).

[Nerd]

Well, now Chillum is stirring up the drama by starting an ANI about me, and the usual suspects (Durova, Wikidemon, Off2riorob) are piling in. I'm quite certain that someone will pull the block trigger shortly. I really don't get why PRODing unsourced BLPs is so controversial, but I'm back to it now (unless they've ALREADY blocked me).

I'll complete the facts by mentioning you decided to use a sockpuppet instead of your (current) main account.

Just how many accounts do you need?

[Sarcasticidealist]

And Jimmy Wales just waded in with a message of strong support for Scott's actions in deleting those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Jimbo stands his ground.

[Lar]

And Jimmy Wales just waded in with a message of strong support for Scott's actions in deleting those articles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I haven't reviewed the specifics of your recent article deletions, so I can't vouch for each and every one of them of course, but I wanted to fully endorse the principles that, as I understand it, you have used in your deletions: unsourced BLPs that have been around for several years are an easy and obvious first target, and your deletions, while unconventional and a bit exciting for some, were carefully considered and I consider this a valid application of WP:BOLD. You have my support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Jimbo stands his ground.

Good for him.

There are some pretty foamy voices on the wrong side of this debate (and some of them say I'm foamy the other way I guess, but whatev). I seem to have trouble being as calm as he was in reply to someone like ChildOfMidnight, A Nobody, DreamFocus, Cyclopia, Ikip, etc.

I think using a newbie welcome template for a good part of the body of the reply (the part that starts "Thank you for your suggestion. "... ) was brilliant.

(snip flattering pic of mah belly)

Just how many socks does Brandt need anyway?

[SDJ]

Well, now Chillum is stirring up the drama by starting an ANI about me, and the usual suspects (Durova, Wikidemon, Off2riorob) are piling in. I'm quite certain that someone will pull the block trigger shortly. I really don't get why PRODing unsourced BLPs is so controversial, but I'm back to it now (unless they've ALREADY blocked me).

I'll complete the facts by mentioning you decided to use a sockpuppet instead of your (current) main account.

Just how many accounts do you need?

I used my fully-disclosed (and, dare I say, very obvious) alternate account, Unitasock. I did so, not out of interest in hiding the PRODS, but because it makes it much simpler to cut and paste them into the holding page I created for ease of use. I basically just cut and paste the contrib page from Unitasock into my holding area, which I couldn't do if I were using my main account.

This post has been edited by SDJ:

[Doc glasgow]

Well, I've made what I think is a workable suggestion to solve this.


If we actually want to solve the problem, rather than just gloat in scoring Jimbo points, we need something the community will live with.

My proposal is perhaps too limp for me, but it might get support.

[Sarcasticidealist]

There are some pretty foamy voices on the wrong side of this debate

Definitely. But we should try to remember that there are some sane ones, too; it's easy for good editors who are in no way part of the BLP problem but who haven't spent years banging their heads against the wall over it either to look at the situation and see utter madness from the admins in question and from ArbCom. Really, if you leave out the context of there being years of inaction despite the best efforts of a lot of people, this is utter madness. It would behoove us on the right side of this debate to refrain from being automatically dismissive of these people's concerns.

[Lar]

Our Austrian exchange student came with a tee that said "there are no kangaroos in Austria" so apparently the confusion is widespread.

Hahaha. I want one that says "There are Kangaroos in Australia", and then we can walk around together and get weird looks.

You'll have to track her down, she went back to Austria.

Or Australia. I forget. Whichever one they speak german in.

[Sarcasticidealist]

My proposal is perhaps too limp for me, but it might get support.

This has endured for nine years; we can tolerate it for another three months.

Incidentally, Doc, I'm pretty sure this whole incident was a nefarious plot to lure you back.

[Lar]

There are some pretty foamy voices on the wrong side of this debate

Definitely. But we should try to remember that there are some sane ones, too; it's easy for good editors who are in no way part of the BLP problem but who haven't spent years banging their heads against the wall over it either to look at the situation and see utter madness from the admins in question and from ArbCom. Really, if you leave out the context of there being years of inaction despite the best efforts of a lot of people, this is utter madness. It would behoove us on the right side of this debate to refrain from being automatically dismissive of these people's concerns.

Well, everybody tends to think they're on the right side of the debate. So that's not a very good metric.

[Doc glasgow]

There are some pretty foamy voices on the wrong side of this debate

Definitely. But we should try to remember that there are some sane ones, too; it's easy for good editors who are in no way part of the BLP problem but who haven't spent years banging their heads against the wall over it either to look at the situation and see utter madness from the admins in question and from ArbCom. Really, if you leave out the context of there being years of inaction despite the best efforts of a lot of people, this is utter madness. It would behoove us on the right side of this debate to refrain from being automatically dismissive of these people's concerns.

Perhaps, but if we take them seriously and spend months convincing them, we'll finish just as the next bunch of good-faith Wikipedians arrive to object.

The problem is structural. Good faith, rules playing, discussion and consensus might be nice and freindly and community shapped, but it also is doomed to failure - and the cost of that to BLP victims is just too high.

We might get some action on unsourced BLPs here (and that's 4% max of "the BLP problem") but the truth is that if it wasn't for grumpy jackboot admin abuse, we'd not even be there.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Well, everybody tends to think they're on the right side of the debate. So that's not a very good metric.

Obviously. But I'm saying that people who haven't been closely following the BLP wars can quite reasonably wind up on the other side of the debate, and it does us no favours to respond to them with "Fuck it, you're wrong, these articles have got go right away." One reason I would have preferred a full case is that I think there could have been a similarly useful end result while alienating fewer people (I'm not talking about Ikip and Cyclopia, but of the various people who are howling with outrage at ArbCom's ruling while also supporting Jehochman's and David Gerard's eminently reasonable proposals). Not everyone who thinks ArbCom's wrong here is a free information ideologue or an all-around sociopath (though some are); many are reasonable people who just didn't realize how bad things had gotten.

We might get some action on unsourced BLPs here (and that's 4% max of "the BLP problem") but the truth is that if it wasn't for grumpy jackboot admin abuse, we'd not even be there.

Agreed; I think you and Kevin were in the right. I also think that ArbCom could have handled this better, especially from a PR perspective, and I'd encourage the various BLP-sensitive non-ArbCom admins to refrain from exacerbating ArbCom's PR failures. That's all I'm saying.

[SDJ]

I think that Arbcom actually seeming to take a stand against the braying mob is not much of a "PR failure."

[Sarcasticidealist]

I think that Arbcom actually seeming to take a stand against the braying mob is not much of a "PR failure."

ArbCom could have taken a stand that seemed less like "Fuck you, everyone who objects to unilateral admin deletions" and more like "A careful application of the following established policy principles and ArbCom's past rulings leads to the conclusion that existing deletion and BLP policy endorses the speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs." One of the things I don't like about the ruling is that it invokes IAR, when I think it needn't have done so.

I wouldn't have wanted to see a weakening of the ruling in substance at all (in fact, a couple of weeks ago I proposed a motion on the arb-wiki to summarily delete the entire list of 8,000 articles that MZMcBride provided, so I don't think I can be fairly called against ArbCom heavy-handedness on BLPs). But it could have alienated fewer good people.

[MBisanz]

I think that Arbcom actually seeming to take a stand against the braying mob is not much of a "PR failure."

ArbCom could have taken a stand that seemed less like "Fuck you, everyone who objects to unilateral admin deletions" and more like "A careful application of the following established policy principles and ArbCom's past rulings leads to the conclusion that existing deletion and BLP policy endorses the speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs." One of the things I don't like about the ruling is that it invokes IAR, when I think it needn't have done so.

I wouldn't have wanted to see a weakening of the ruling in substance at all (in fact, a couple of weeks ago I proposed a motion on the arb-wiki to summarily delete the entire list of 8,000 articles that MZMcBride provided, so I don't think I can be fairly called against ArbCom heavy-handedness on BLPs). But it could have alienated fewer good people.

I remember I developed a way that if you read Arbcom's existing findings at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Biographies_of_living_people and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs it would permit deletion of the kind that occurred (you have read the modifying adjectives carefully to fully get there). If you wanted even stronger support, you could have done that in conjunction with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Biographies_of_living_persons and possibly a broadened WP:BLPBAN remedy. That said, it is Arbcom's job to settle things that the community can't settle on its own and there is no rule that says Arbcom must find a compromise position in doing so.

[Sarcasticidealist]

That said, it is Arbcom's job to settle things that the community can't settle on its own and there is no rule that says Arbcom must find a compromise position in doing so.

I didn't want a compromise. I wanted a strong ruling that made sure that we got rid of our unsourced BLPs without being subject to the vagaries of Community consensus, but that also showed that ArbCom took seriously concerns about unaccountable admin behaviour and the desire for some sort of order to prevail. As it happens, I know from the mailing list and some on-wiki comments that ArbCom does take those concerns seriously, but I don't think the motion reflects that.

[The Joy]

That said, it is Arbcom's job to settle things that the community can't settle on its own and there is no rule that says Arbcom must find a compromise position in doing so.

I didn't want a compromise. I wanted a strong ruling that made sure that we got rid of our unsourced BLPs without being subject to the vagaries of Community consensus, but that also showed that ArbCom took seriously concerns about unaccountable admin behaviour and the desire for some sort of order to prevail. As it happens, I know from the mailing list and some on-wiki comments that ArbCom does take those concerns seriously, but I don't think the motion reflects that.

Why didn't you or the other opposers of the motion as written write an alternative motion, then, if you felt there were problems with Kirill's motion?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Why didn't you or the other opposers of the motion as written write an alternative motion, then, if you felt there were problems with Kirill's motion?

Because my main problem was that it was a summary motion rather than a case.

[Milton Roe]

Not everyone who thinks ArbCom's wrong here is a free information ideologue or an all-around sociopath (though some are); many are reasonable people who just didn't realize how bad things had gotten.

Sarc, I dunno why you're making excuses for these people, as we've told them with simple figures how bad the problem is, and they're not listening. This is not rocket science (GWH apparently actually can do rocket science, and HE doesn't get BLP).

Look, BLPs are 14% of WP. And 14% of the BLPs have no watchers. And 14% of THEM have no references. More or less. The total is 8000 backlog for the last, but working through even those is a month's volunteer work by a single person, and is not trivial labor. Moreover, the real problem is NOT just the unwatched and unsourced, ones, but the unwatched ones, which is a pool 7 times larger.

All this won't sit still, either. English WP is growing presently at 1500 articles per day, of which (indeed) about 14% or 15% are BLPs (just looking at the last couple of days where I've been keeping track). BLPs are indeed added at the rate of 220 new ones per day, or so, as you can check by keeping track of CAT:LP.

Now the part I can't check is if the bad ones are added at the same fractional rate, but McBride can do this. I'll bet you a Guinness that they are.

14% of 220 new BLPs is about 30 articles a day that will ultimately wind up unwatched. Who is adding those articles to their watchlist every day? It's probably also roughly 30 new BLPs per day that are watched by one person, but still have no source.

14% of 30 articles is 4 new articles a day, perhaps 5, which will be unwatched AND have no source given. Who's finding and reading those and fixing them or tagging them for immediate deletion? George William Herbert? I doubt it.

This happens every single day. WP growth is not stagnant yet, and it's not even linear yet, so expect these rates to grow some before they settle down. Somebody has to deal with it. What's the key, Lee? No need to be coy, Roy.

We need 50 ways to fix the bios. Even 5 ways. Not just pissing and moaning about the work that already hasn't been done, but also a plan for work in the future, too. What's the plan, Stan?

-- Enric Roe Fermi

[Sarcasticidealist]

Sarc, I dunno why you're making excuses for these people, as we've told them with simple figures how bad the problem is, and they're not listening.

That's true; but to the extent they're not listening, it's because they're throwing out a knee-jerk reaction against ArbCom's motion. Now, you can justly blame them for allowing their outrage towards ArbCom's motion to blind them to the evidence, but I think you can also blame ArbCom for passing a motion so likely to cause that kind of outrage (when there were other, equally productive, courses of action that were likely to lead to less).

We need 50 ways to fix the bios. Even 5 ways. Not pissing and moaning about the work that already hasn't been done, but also a plan for work in the future, too. What's the plan, Stan?

The plan is to either delete or source all the unsourced BLPs in a reasonable timeframe. That actually looks likely to happen now, which is a direct consequence of ArbCom's motion; to that extent, I'm very pleased with it. I'm just concerned that in addition to (hopefully) driving off some editors Wikipedia would be better off without, it may drive off a few that we'd be better off with.

[Milton Roe]

The plan is to either delete or source all the unsourced BLPs in a reasonable timeframe. That actually looks likely to happen now, which is a direct consequence of ArbCom's motion; to that extent, I'm very pleased with it.

Okay, so what about the roughly 30 NEW BLP articles a day (watched and not) that will have no source? Is somebody going to run a sweep once a week and wipe out the 200 or so new BLPs that have to go? Or do we get the same piss and moan every Tuesday (or whenever trash day is).

And by the way, if it's simply unsourced BLPs that are the problem, you have not just 8,000 to deal with, but a backlog of 50 or 60,000.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Okay, so what about the roughly 30 NEW BLP articles a day (watched and not) that will have no source? Is somebody going to run a sweep once a week and wipe out the 200 or so new BLPs that have to go? Or do we get the same piss and moan every Tuesday (or whenever trash day is).

Once there's an understanding that unsourced BLPs can be deleted (whether immediately or after a seven day grace period), thirty per day shouldn't be too hard to deal with. There now seems to be such an understanding, and it's just process that's yet to be ironed out. And if process isn't ironed out, admins can just keep deleting them unilaterally.

And by the way, if it's simply unsourced BLPs that are the problem, you have not just 8,000 to deal with, but 50 or 60,000.

Um, yes; I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought otherwise.

[The Joy]

Why didn't you or the other opposers of the motion as written write an alternative motion, then, if you felt there were problems with Kirill's motion?

Because my main problem was that it was a summary motion rather than a case.

I don't how many administrators were involved on both Pro-Policy and Pro-BLP sides, but wouldn't a full case have been almost impossible with so many parties? It was also apparent that some administrators simply wouldn't have stopped until their bits were taken from them, ArbCom support or no ArbCom support. Such a case would have taken months to sift through evidence and hear every voice (both relevant and irrelevant). You came close to having a full-fledged civil war on your hands. Do you think that an ArbCom case would have stopped it? What would have wanted to address or rectify with a case?

In an ideal situation, both sides would have talked about this years ago and made it policy to delete unsourced BLPs. Unfortunately, unilateral action seemed to be the only way to get people to look at the Big Picture and the ethical responsibilities that come with maintaining a widely-used online resource like Wikipedia. Even more unfortunately, the Pro-Process/Pro-Policy wonks still are not getting it.

Even more further unfortunately, I find looking at New Pages that many BLP subjects try writing their own bio and even fight people like Lar and Doc glasgow to keep it there not realizing that they relinquish control of their bio to the "Community" and will one day regret their error. You also have the standard POV-pushers, revenge-mongers, immature persons, and people who won't bother to add references writing BLP articles as well. Wikipedia needs some sort of guardian at the gate (a Cerberus, if you will) to stop unsourced BLP articles from being created in the first place. Otherwise, deleting unsourced BLPs is just Sisyphus rolling up that boulder again and again.

[thekohser]

When Jimbo says:

There are a handful of people who are, in fact, irresponsible and unethical - they are mostly not members of the community, who may disagree about certain parameters here and there, but who, as far as I can see, very much have their heads screwed on straight about BLP issues.

Who exactly is he talking about?

[Milton Roe]

Okay, so what .
And by the way, if it's simply unsourced BLPs that are the problem, you have not just 8,000 to deal with, but 50 or 60,000.

Um, yes; I'm not sure where you got the impression that I thought otherwise.

Not you particularly, I'm just pointing it out in general, since nobody really addressed it. It's also my own mental note, too.

We looked at 58,000 unwatched BLPs and found 8,000 as the unsourced fraction of that, but nobody asked what the total number of merely unsourced BLPs is. I'm presuming the unsourced fraction of unwatched BLPs will be the same as the unsourced fraction of ALL BLPs, but that's probably wrong. It won't be that high, because the more watched a BLP is, the morely likely it will have sources. However, the total number is certainly higher than 8,000. And probably (but not certainly) less than 58,000.

[Kelly Martin]

When Jimbo says:

There are a handful of people who are, in fact, irresponsible and unethical - they are mostly not members of the community, who may disagree about certain parameters here and there, but who, as far as I can see, very much have their heads screwed on straight about BLP issues.

Who exactly is he talking about?

I'd have to say himself, the other members of the Board, and the WMF staff. But that's just a guess.

[MBisanz]

One thing that has surprised me in the response to this motion is that idea that Arbcom dropped in out of the sky and did some radical thing that no one saw coming. Looking at past cases like Footnoted quotes, Sarah Palin protection wheel war, Obama probation, Badlydrawnjeff, and Brandt deletion wheel war, I see a clear line of Arbcom enacting stricter and stricter sanctions on BLPs and continuing to bemoan that the sanctions are still not solving the problem adequately. This is just the natural conclusion of that line of findings.

[thekohser]

Weren't we talking about the "biggest" big-name BLPs who were unsourced? If so, I've got one:

Rupert Hine

That's redonkulous.

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"? I'm curious how many are keeping an eye on Rupert Hine. Because, you know, Saga, The Fixx, and Rush all rule.

[MBisanz]

Weren't we talking about the "biggest" big-name BLPs who were unsourced? If so, I've got one:

Rupert Hine

That's redonkulous.

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"? I'm curious how many are keeping an eye on Rupert Hine. Because, you know, Saga, The Fixx, and Rush all rule.

Less then 30: Watchlist counter

[Jon Awbrey]

Weren't we talking about the "biggest" big-name BLPs who were unsourced? If so, I've got one:

Rupert Hine

That's redonkulous.

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"? I'm curious how many are keeping an eye on Rupert Hine. Because, you know, Saga, The Fixx, and Rush all rule.

Less then 30: Watchlist counter

Uh-Oh

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[taiwopanfob]

Once there's an understanding that unsourced BLPs can be deleted (whether immediately or after a seven day grace period), thirty per day shouldn't be too hard to deal with. There now seems to be such an understanding, and it's just process that's yet to be ironed out. And if process isn't ironed out, admins can just keep deleting them unilaterally.

This is the kind of pointless, and incredibly wasteful human labor practices that desperately need to be thrown into the dumpster.

The software should simply reject any article -- not just a BLP -- that lacks references in some standard form.

Just flat out reject it. Be nasty about it, be nice about it, but never, ever, let one in again.

True, this can be gamed, but such gaming will more easily identify what we might start calling "second order vandals" (the first order ones are the 'tards who add stuff like "jimbo is a poopoohead").

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[MBisanz]

Weren't we talking about the "biggest" big-name BLPs who were unsourced? If so, I've got one:

Rupert Hine

That's redonkulous.

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"? I'm curious how many are keeping an eye on Rupert Hine. Because, you know, Saga, The Fixx, and Rush all rule.

Less then 30: Watchlist counter

Uh-Oh

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

That's odd, his talk page says that Jehochman added a Prod tag to the Thinkman article on April 8, 2007, but the page history doesn't show it

[tarantino]

It could be worse. A simpleton like Chillum might be able to garner enough power to influence how biographies are managed.

(IMG:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg231/sonitnarat/ryan.jpg)

Or not.

[Juliancolton]

Weren't we talking about the "biggest" big-name BLPs who were unsourced? If so, I've got one:

Rupert Hine

That's redonkulous.

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"? I'm curious how many are keeping an eye on Rupert Hine. Because, you know, Saga, The Fixx, and Rush all rule.

10

[radek]

Weren't we talking about the "biggest" big-name BLPs who were unsourced? If so, I've got one:

Rupert Hine

That's redonkulous.

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"? I'm curious how many are keeping an eye on Rupert Hine. Because, you know, Saga, The Fixx, and Rush all rule.

Probably not quite up there, but Ozzie Newsome, current general manager of Baltimore Ravens and football Hall of Famer was one of the unsourced BLPs until recently.

[MZMcBride]

The plan is to either delete or source all the unsourced BLPs in a reasonable timeframe. That actually looks likely to happen now, which is a direct consequence of ArbCom's motion; to that extent, I'm very pleased with it.

Okay, so what about the roughly 30 NEW BLP articles a day (watched and not) that will have no source? Is somebody going to run a sweep once a week and wipe out the 200 or so new BLPs that have to go? Or do we get the same piss and moan every Tuesday (or whenever trash day is).

And by the way, if it's simply unsourced BLPs that are the problem, you have not just 8,000 to deal with, but a backlog of 50 or 60,000.

For what it's worth:

• Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created biographies of living people
• Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people

There's a small bug in the second list that causes biographies that are already tagged with "Template:BLP unsourced" to not be processed as they should be. I'll hopefully fix that tomorrow.

[Milton Roe]

Once there's an understanding that unsourced BLPs can be deleted (whether immediately or after a seven day grace period), thirty per day shouldn't be too hard to deal with. There now seems to be such an understanding, and it's just process that's yet to be ironed out. And if process isn't ironed out, admins can just keep deleting them unilaterally.

This is the kind of pointless, and incredibly wasteful human labor practices that desperately need to be thrown into the dumpster.

The software should simply reject any article -- not just a BLP -- that lacks references in some standard form.

Yes. We could get a computer to do it! ™. Do you think I could trademark this, if I used it enough regarding WP's penchant for making its editors and admins do tedious and wasteful things "by hand"?

But then, I think of that horrifying little MMORPG Farm Town that connects to Facebook. I've talked about this before. Honest to god, it has intelligent people doing things like one-by-one cultivation (planting and harvesting) of electronic crops, like putting in bunches of rice plants in a paddy. All to gain electronic money to buy electronic farm products with, to do more of the same. I've seen people doing this while yacking at their Facebook friends, very much like women at a quilting bee. And whatever boring dull repetitious task that men do when socializing (play darts in a pub or something).

The idea (in part) is that the dull repetive task is not supposed to take up all your brain power. It's supposed to be like quilting or whatever, because it's there as a cover to keep yourself busy while you do some other social thing. Limey has suggested that such things are "written in" to WP's system, consciously or unconsciously, to give people something to fix or do, that doesn't require full intellect. This, so that they don't have to work too hard at it when tired. And so they'll have some processing power left over to play the social functions of the game. Try yacking to your friends while you're solving a nasty differential equation or writing a essay or short story, or trying to write good code. Forget it. Unless your mouth runs independent of your upper brain completely, which is what I suspect from the behavior of some people I know... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

And then, there's the suggestion that there's some kind of odd bonding that occurs from doing repetitious work with your mates. From bulding a house to practicing military drill. Supposedly it's worth doing even in a modern army, where in theory you should be using the drill time learning who to do something hard, like fire a weapon accurately, or read a map and think in 3-D. So the military says. And so it is when it comes to WoW, too. Who am I to argue with all THAT experience? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It may even be that some lower-level jobs are left open deliberately, for people who really can't write at all. So we don't leave them out of the great enterprise of producing an encyclopedia, you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Assembly lines might be dehumanizing if that was all you did, but people do that work and socialize too, and there are a lot of people lacking the brains or training to do anything else. So what happens when the assembly line is run by teh compuuuter? Have you ever read Vonnegut's book Player Piano? It has some cute things to say about what the world will look like when machines have replaced humans in all but the very most creativity-demanding jobs. What does everybody else DO, then? If they're not engineers? Vonnegut's answer is that they're in security, or else some WPA-like public works type agency, whose job it is to dig holes and then fill them in again. I think I recognize some WP, there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Alison]

Coffee just got banhammered by Sandstein for re-inserting the ArbCom clause into the PROD policy, after it was protected (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[The Joy]

Coffee just got banhammered by Sandstein for re-inserting the ArbCom clause into the PROD policy, after it was protected (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Coffee got banned? Well that's... hey! Wait a minute... it was only a 24 hour block, not a ban. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I am very disappointed in Sandstein for taking the Pro-Policy route and blocking Coffee only for 24 hours. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

What a maroon! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[MBisanz]

:::Grumble, grumble:::

WP:RFAR#WP:PROD wheel war

[MZMcBride]

:::Grumble, grumble:::

WP:RFAR#WP:PROD wheel war

I like how you say "grumble" as though you didn't get a small hard-on while filing that.

[dogbiscuit]

In conclusion, not that there will ever be one, the most telling thing about this whole debacle is the dysfunctional debate it has produced, yet again we see that Teh Community is incapable of rational and reasonable discussion.

That is evidence enough that all is not right in the Kingdom of Wikipedia - that there is no rational, functional debate guided by - or to guide - the leadership of the project.

There is also the fine conclusion that to be a right thinking Wikipedian, the whims of Teh Community are above the (supposed) aims of the project, or society, or individuals.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Viridae]

Our Austrian exchange student came with a tee that said "there are no kangaroos in Austria" so apparently the confusion is widespread.

Hahaha. I want one that says "There are Kangaroos in Australia", and then we can walk around together and get weird looks.

You'll have to track her down, she went back to Austria.

Or Australia. I forget. Whichever one they speak german in.

Lots of germans in Australia. They all speak english though.

Well, everybody tends to think they're on the right side of the debate. So that's not a very good metric.

Obviously. But I'm saying that people who haven't been closely following the BLP wars can quite reasonably wind up on the other side of the debate, and it does us no favours to respond to them with "Fuck it, you're wrong, these articles have got go right away." One reason I would have preferred a full case is that I think there could have been a similarly useful end result while alienating fewer people (I'm not talking about Ikip and Cyclopia, but of the various people who are howling with outrage at ArbCom's ruling while also supporting Jehochman's and David Gerard's eminently reasonable proposals). Not everyone who thinks ArbCom's wrong here is a free information ideologue or an all-around sociopath (though some are); many are reasonable people who just didn't realize how bad things had gotten.

We might get some action on unsourced BLPs here (and that's 4% max of "the BLP problem") but the truth is that if it wasn't for grumpy jackboot admin abuse, we'd not even be there.

Agreed; I think you and Kevin were in the right. I also think that ArbCom could have handled this better, especially from a PR perspective, and I'd encourage the various BLP-sensitive non-ArbCom admins to refrain from exacerbating ArbCom's PR failures. That's all I'm saying.

That case would have been a clusterfuck.

[A Horse With No Name]

Coffee just got banhammered by Sandstein for re-inserting the ArbCom clause into the PROD policy, after it was protected (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

If this rancid cake needed a sour cherry, that would be it.

This whole situation is among the pathetic things I've ever witnessed. Publishing a reference text without references is idiocy on its own terms, but the volatile matter in which it is being addressed is even worse. And the fighting, name calling and (now) blocking over this matter really shows that responsibility is in the hands of people who lack the mental health and maturity to handle the task correctly.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

supporting Jehochman's and David Gerard's eminently reasonable proposals).

Eminently reasonable, are not words often used to describe Jehoch and Gerard.
The reason they are being thus in this case should be obvious-They want to be on the right side of the tide. That is what players and politicians do; they adapt but do not evolve.

It is also why I'm not supporting their proposals. No, it should not matter who makes a proposal- if it is sound and reasonable it should stand on its own virtues. But motives do matter, therefore I refuse to reward behavior, which though on its surface may appear reasonable and in service of the greater good, is actually self-serving.

Especially when less than 24 hours prior to authoring his wonderful proposal, Hochman pitched a threatening temper tantrum on Kirill's talkpage. As for Davy's motive, he just wants to get back in a position where he can once again tell anyone who disagrees with or questions him to go intercourse themselves. The very behavior that is about to earn him the Dick of Distinction award here for the second year in a row (and I'd like to throw in my own Cyde Weys Memorial Golden Assy too, while we're at it).

Until I see a lot more evolution and less opportunistic adaptation from these two, I refuse to be their enabler.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

supporting Jehochman's and David Gerard's eminently reasonable proposals).

Eminently reasonable, are not words often used to describe Jehoch and Gerard.
The reason they are being thus in this case should be obvious-They want to be on the right side of the tide. That is what players and politicians do; they adapt but do not evolve.

It is also why I'm not supporting their proposals. No, it should not matter who makes a proposal- if it is sound and reasonable it should stand on its own virtues. But motives do matter, therefore I refuse to reward behavior, which though on its surface may appear reasonable and in service of the greater good, is actually self-serving.

Especially when less than 24 hours prior to authoring his wonderful proposal, Hochman pitched a threatening temper tantrum on Kirill's talkpage. As for Davy's motive, he just wants to get back in a position where he can once again tell anyone who disagrees with or questions him to go intercourse themselves. The very behavior that is about to earn him the Dick of Distinction award here for the second year in a row (and I'd like to throw in my own Cyde Weys Memorial Golden Assy too, while we're at it).

Until I see a lot more evolution and less opportunistic adaptation from these two, I refuse to be their enabler.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Sorry, this is just part of the simplistic WR tendency of trying to divide everyone into evil and good.

I've been heavily critical of DG, he can be a troll, but he's been pretty consistent on BLP for a long time. You take the rough with the smooth, but there's no need to assume clandestine political motives.

[Nerd]

Coffee just got banhammered by Sandstein for re-inserting the ArbCom clause into the PROD policy, after it was protected (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Coffee got banned? Well that's... hey! Wait a minute... it was only a 24 hour block, not a ban. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I am very disappointed in Sandstein for taking the Pro-Policy route and blocking Coffee only for 24 hours. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

What a maroon! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I think the block was a bad idea, but [off topic] Coffee has been turning into a classic "bureaucratic fuck" as of late. The kind of admin who enjoys ordering others around and threatening blocks, and whenever he is criticized on his talk page, he simply removes it.

And bearing in mind he was desysopped for password sharing and got his tools back via the "back door" method, perhaps he has had his time.

[SB_Johnny]

In conclusion, not that there will ever be one, the most telling thing about this whole debacle is the dysfunctional debate it has produced, yet again we see that Teh Community is incapable of rational and reasonable discussion.

Yes, but you weren't expecting Teh Community to suddenly become rational, did you? If that were a possibility, it wouldn't have required guerrilla tactics to finally get the ball rolling on this.

Kudos to the (Brand New!) Arbcom for not (a) blowing up, (b) following an appeasement approach, or © putting their tails between their legs on this.

supporting Jehochman's and David Gerard's eminently reasonable proposals).

Eminently reasonable, are not words often used to describe Jehoch and Gerard.
The reason they are being thus in this case should be obvious-They want to be on the right side of the tide. That is what players and politicians do; they adapt but do not evolve.

Yes, but the fact that Jehochman and DG think that the debate is going to land up on the right side is a good thing, no?

Sorry, this is just part of the simplistic WR tendency of trying to divide everyone into evil and good.

That seems to work about half the time. At least half.

[dogbiscuit]

In conclusion, not that there will ever be one, the most telling thing about this whole debacle is the dysfunctional debate it has produced, yet again we see that Teh Community is incapable of rational and reasonable discussion.

Yes, but you weren't expecting Teh Community to suddenly become rational, did you? If that were a possibility, it wouldn't have required guerrilla tactics to finally get the ball rolling on this.

Kudos to the (Brand New!) Arbcom for not (a) blowing up, (b) following an appeasement approach, or © putting their tails between their legs on this.

However, the WMF defend their position of uninvolvement on the presumption of a rational community.

They have a duty of care, even with s230 lying around in the mix, to ensure that Wikipedia is properly run. Those Who Know know that this is not the case. The wider public assume it is managed in some way.

The opportunity here is to chip away at the credibility of WMF with the public.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

However, the WMF defend their position of uninvolvement on the presumption of a rational community.

They have a duty of care, even with s230 lying around in the mix, to ensure that Wikipedia is properly run. Those Who Know know that this is not the case. The wider public assume it is managed in some way.

I believe you are referring to the principle of Due Diligence, yes?

[Apathetic]

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"?

On the history page

[Jon Awbrey]

Sorry, this is just part of the simplistic WR tendency of trying to divide everyone into evil and good.

Actually, all Wikiputia is divided among the Evil and the Stupid …

But some folks maintain dual citizenship.

Take yer pick, Gimli —

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Sorry, this is just part of the simplistic WR tendency of trying to divide everyone into evil and good.

That seems to work about half the time. At least half.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) You mean about half the time, it's good?

[SB_Johnny]

Sorry, this is just part of the simplistic WR tendency of trying to divide everyone into evil and good.

That seems to work about half the time. At least half.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) You mean about half the time, it's good?

Well, about half the time there's not much of a gray area.

Or grey, if you favour grey.

[dogbiscuit]

However, the WMF defend their position of uninvolvement on the presumption of a rational community.

They have a duty of care, even with s230 lying around in the mix, to ensure that Wikipedia is properly run. Those Who Know know that this is not the case. The wider public assume it is managed in some way.

I believe you are referring to the principle of Due Diligence, yes?

There are many duties an ethical organisation has: legal and moral.

Due diligence for the WMF should be ensuring that they look after the project over the whims of community. In this respect, Jimbo is acting appropriately for the WMF - it may even be that behind the scenes he was prompted to intervene by Godwin, who did not want to formally intercede. (The legal argument is probably pretty obvious - unsourced statements about people with potentially no ability to backtrack many years to identify the authors doesn't leave anyone in the legal sights but the WMF, regardless of s230 applying in the USA).

This is all obvious stuff, and scratch the surface of most critics of the WMF, it is this determinedly detached position in the face of obvious wrongs that is so galling.

[MZMcBride]

Where is the link to that tool that measures "how many are watchlisting it"?

On the history page

Aye, there are four links on the history page that are all pretty nifty. Or you can do your own lookups directly by inputting the titles here.

[Doc glasgow]

OK, here goes with a policy proposal.

User:Scott MacDonald/unreferenced BLPs

[Nerd]

These users are administrators on the English Wikipedia.

Do you get off teenage boys in loin-cloths?

[The Adversary]

OK, here goes with a policy proposal.

User:Scott MacDonald/unreferenced BLPs

A good start.
May I suggest that when it comes to backlogged bios, one should, if possible, notify the wikiproject the bio "belongs" to?

Example; I noticed at least two former PM's of Sweden on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dat...f_living_people. My experience is that people who work on these "national" project often do not follow the "dramah"-boards, I would suspect most of them know nothing of the recent arb.com ruling. A note the wikiproject talk-page, with a link the arb.bom ruling and "local" articles which are unsourced, would be a help.

[Doc glasgow]

OK, here goes with a policy proposal.

User:Scott MacDonald/unreferenced BLPs

A good start.
May I suggest that when it comes to backlogged bios, one should, if possible, notify the wikiproject the bio "belongs" to?

Example; I noticed at least two former PM's of Sweden on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dat...f_living_people. My experience is that people who work on these "national" project often do not follow the "dramah"-boards, I would suspect most of them know nothing of the recent arb.com ruling. A note the wikiproject talk-page, with a link the arb.bom ruling and "local" articles which are unsourced, would be a help.

A bot could notify any wikiproject noted on the talk page of the article.

[NuclearWarfare]

There needs to be some way to automate that, or else it will never get done. Where to go to find a willing coder though...

[KD Tries Again]

I think the real problem, of which poor quality BLPs are just an example, is that anyone can edit Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

Did Jehochman just defang his proposal after the votes came in?

[SDJ]

Did Jehochman just defang his proposal after the votes came in?

It seems so.

[NuclearWarfare]

Well, at least it is back to what it originally was now.

[SB_Johnny]

Well, at least it is back to what it originally was now.

The second "clarification" is the issue.

[BelovedFox]

Did Jehochman just defang his proposal after the votes came in?

It seems so.

What is "defanged" in that proposal? It seems mostly reasonable, although I find the fact that it singles out deprodders for blocks and not botlike prodders distasteful.

[Sarcasticidealist]

What is "defanged" in that proposal? It seems mostly reasonable, although I find the fact that it singles out deprodders for blocks and not botlike prodders distasteful.

Reading further on in this thread, the version now up is apparently the refanged version.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: I cleaned this thread of a number of photo-humor posts, as well as a couple of low-content ones. They are collected in a thread in the Tar Pit.]

[YellowMonkey]

Well, since people on Wikipedia often don't check things except in a token manner, some people would just add random/partial/fake refs to the end of the para and it would be passed.

The % of BLPs with at least one source could just be another meaningless metric like so many on Wikipedia that are used by editors to give a false, inflated impression of their achievements to ehance their public prestige

[MBisanz]

Jimbo's proposal

Seems like a good idea that I can get behind.

[Mike R]

Jimbo's proposal

Seems like a good idea that I can get behind.

A decent attempt at leadership. Props for this:

I acknowledge that there may be some who believe that unreferenced biographies should be kept on the site permanently, even if no one is willing to improve them. But that battle has been lost.

[The Adversary]

Jimbo's proposal

Seems like a good idea that I can get behind.

A decent attempt at leadership. Props for this:

I acknowledge that there may be some who believe that unreferenced biographies should be kept on the site permanently, even if no one is willing to improve them. But that battle has been lost.

Interesting. Jimbos suggestion for dealing with back-logs are principally the same as Doc's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_Ma...referenced_BLPs ..just that Jimbo has other dates.

Not bad!

[TungstenCarbide]

Jimbo's proposal

Seems like a good idea that I can get behind.

A decent attempt at leadership. Props for this:

I acknowledge that there may be some who believe that unreferenced biographies should be kept on the site permanently, even if no one is willing to improve them. But that battle has been lost.

Interesting. Jimbos suggestion for dealing with back-logs are principally the same as Doc's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_Ma...referenced_BLPs ..just that Jimbo has other dates.

Not bad!

Ya, pretty much the same thing as Doc's, tweaked a little.

[NuclearWarfare]

And of course, even a reasonable proposal is already being strongly objected to by...some.

I'm not sure when the opposers are going to learn this, but all that is going is feeing into the hands of the people who will say "Well, the Community is fucked up, we're going to do this properly." And from the looks of things, Jimmy and the ArbCom will probably support them. Jimmy had it right with his quote about treating this matter as a fait accompli. If everyone doesn't pick up on that soon, well, I can't see things ending up well for them.

[SB_Johnny]

Another round on ANI now, in case anyone missed it.

[thekohser]

Interesting. Jimbos suggestion for dealing with back-logs are principally the same as Doc's ...

I am not surprised that Jimbo would resort to plagiarism in order to appear that he had a good idea for something.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Interesting. Jimbos suggestion for dealing with back-logs are principally the same as Doc's ...

I am not surprised that Jimbo would resort to plagiarism in order to appear that he had a good idea for something.

Of course, just as he came up with the idea for Wikipedia all by his loathsome lonesome.

[Doc glasgow]

Interesting. Jimbos suggestion for dealing with back-logs are principally the same as Doc's ...

I am not surprised that Jimbo would resort to plagiarism in order to appear that he had a good idea for something.

It could just be that great minds think alike......

but I don't care. If it does the job then that's a start.

[TungstenCarbide]

Another round on ANI now, in case anyone missed it.

This is just embarrassing to read - an 'administrator' on the worlds largest reference site unable to use English at a third grade level;
"Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags."

[thekohser]

Well, since people on Wikipedia often don't check things except in a token manner, some people would just add random/partial/fake refs to the end of the para and it would be passed.

I can't imagine that happening!

[SDJ]

Another round on ANI now, in case anyone missed it.

This is just embarrassing to read - an 'administrator' on the worlds largest reference site unable to use English at a third grade level;
"Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags."

That whole mess at ANI is archived now. It really was a pathetic display. At one point, Cyclopia used a metaphor that compared the sourcing that's happened from my PRODing to threatening to kill children.

[Shalom]

Authors of 5+ unreferenced BLPs hall of shame: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Bot&namespace=3

This is a bot message directed to those authors. Actually a great idea, but I can make a mental note to search RFA candidates if they're on this page! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Another round on ANI now, in case anyone missed it.

This is just embarrassing to read - an 'administrator' on the worlds largest reference site unable to use English at a third grade level;
"Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags."

That whole mess at ANI is archived now. It really was a pathetic display. At one point, Cyclopia used a metaphor that compared the sourcing that's happened from my PRODing to threatening to kill children.

Does that include our friend Raul654 who when I prodded the unreferenced negative bio he'd created (I should have speedied it - all the "external links" were dead) unprodded it without sourcing it?.

[Sarcasticidealist]

This is just embarrassing to read - an 'administrator' on the worlds largest reference site unable to use English at a third grade level;
"Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags."

I suspect that you'd find a lot of high-level people in very respectable organizations using the objective subjectively. Some of them might leave apostrophes out of possessives, too.

(Admittedly, the bit about editing while high is probably unique to Wikipedia.)

[SDJ]

Another round on ANI now, in case anyone missed it.

This is just embarrassing to read - an 'administrator' on the worlds largest reference site unable to use English at a third grade level;
"Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags."

That whole mess at ANI is archived now. It really was a pathetic display. At one point, Cyclopia used a metaphor that compared the sourcing that's happened from my PRODing to threatening to kill children.

Does that include our friend Raul654 who when I prodded the unreferenced negative bio he'd created (I should have speedied it - all the "external links" were dead) unprodded it without sourcing it?.

Wow. Just wow. I don't even know what to say about that. The accusations may well be true, but to remove the PROD without sourcing it? Good lord.

[SDJ]

Ikip is coming unhinged. He just posted a long screed under Durova's "they should have written a Signpost editorial" suggestion. I think that the response to Brad's suggestion is getting him worried that the tide is shifting against him.

[Lar]

Ikip is coming unhinged. He just posted a long screed under Durova's "they should have written a Signpost editorial" suggestion. I think that the response to Brad's suggestion is getting him worried that the tide is shifting against him.

Define "coming" in this context, please. Using that word implies a previous state of being less unhinged, does it not?

[SDJ]

Ikip is coming unhinged. He just posted a long screed under Durova's "they should have written a Signpost editorial" suggestion. I think that the response to Brad's suggestion is getting him worried that the tide is shifting against him.

Define "coming" in this context, please. Using that word implies a previous state of being less unhinged, does it not?

This is a point to consider. I'd not really noticed him at any point before this fiasco, so I'm not sure if a "less unhinged" state ever existed.