Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Ikip

This is a subpage of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people one of many possible solutions to the large size of this conversation.


 * Return to Ikip's comments


 * Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Ikip  21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Gigs (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cycl o pia  talk  23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) JohnWBarber (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Ruslik_ Zero  13:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Sole Soul (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongly support. Admins should support policy, consensus, and ArbCom. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Davewild (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, This is why I support the Community De-adminship process as well. Too many scandals of late. Admins need to understand that they are not above policy and consensus. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 14)    S warm  ( Talk ) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support ---Epeefleche (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support the need for consensus before making such deletions, without condemning any individuals. Certes (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) support JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Users who Oppose this summary


 * 1) Oppose as with MickMacNee's statements, this misses the point. RFC/User is elsewhere.  If the actions of admins who acted irresponsibly need to be discussed, please have that discussion, but have it elsewhere.  The discussion here needs to be focused on how to manage the BLP problem at Wikipedia.  Even a proposed solution of "maintain the status quo/make no changes to the BLP situation" would have been better than statements like this, because at least it would remain focused on the topic at hand rather than straying into discussions which have nothing to do with this RFC.  -- Jayron  32  07:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument misses the point. The underlying way that this RFC came into being is a portent of the way these same editors and their supporters will bullying handle deleting 50,000 articles: badly, disruptively, and as bullies. "straying into discussions which have nothing to do with this RFC." ignores the entire history of how we got here. This RFC did not happen in a vacuum, pretending that this RFC does not have a vile history because it severely weakens your viewpoint does not change this fact. When the community discusses consensus, we discuss all of the consequences of those proposals. Lar, Scott MacDonald  and Rdm2376 are the face of the bullying and "utter contempt" for other editors which the community will have to suffer through if we decide to delete 50,000 articles. Condoning such behavior by attempting to sweep it under the rug does not change that history. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored): an olympic medallist for f**k's sake  07:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It doesn't matter who started a discussion, what matters is the outcome. Mr.Z-man 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I doesn't matter who is stuffing the ballot box? Really?  WP:CANVAS is pretty clear in saying it does. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * 1) Without endorsing or disputing any of the assertions made, I do not feel this is constructive at this particular venue. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the community should not reward intentional "disruption" and "drama" by editors who have "utter contempt" for consensus. Editors new to this issue deserve to know the illegitamate and disruptive way this RFC came about. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored): an olympic medallist for f**k's sake  22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree that the actions should not be condoned and that many of the deletions were viable article, but you have to hand it to them- they've brought more attention (2 ANI threads, an ArbCom case, a comment from Jimmy Wales, 2 policy discussions and now an RfC) to these ~50,000 articles desperately in need of attention that months of campaigning and small discussions in other venues haven't achieved. Ironic really. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This is mostly finger-pointing without a proposal on should be done about the situation.  Them  From  Space  21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a proposal, but quite disconcerting statement. A group of editors/admins act on their own account, putting their opinion above discussion and consensus. Now, what is more harmful to the project? Is it slow and careful cleanup process based on a concensus, or individual actions of enlightened "über-editors"? --Vejvančický (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm still flabbergasted that any admin would just up and delete stuff on the basis of a script searching for tags, without human review.  Not on a volunteer project where tags get screwed up regularly by people who don't know, make mistakes, are unsure, or whatever.  It's like doing rm -rf * in the root of a CVS tree.  (I did that once - thank God for backups.)  I can only assume they were out drinking the night before.  If I did this on a job and didn't fix it ASAP I'd be sacked.  Does WP have a method to address this type of misconduct?  RavanAsteris (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should assume less. Certainly I did not use any automated process to pick out the articles I deleted, and I strongly doubt that the others did either. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You went through and manually reviewed each of thousands of articles for whether they had sources or not? If so, I'm very impressed!  Or did you assume that whoever had last tagged them as being "unsourced" was still correct?  BTW, running an operation based on a select statement in a database is an automated process.  Running a script that picks out all articles that contain a given string and performing an operation on it is an automated process.  If these are not the type of thing you did then I will stand corrected. --RavanAsteris (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually deleted 67 articles, each of which I checked to ensure an actual lack of references. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pleased that you actually did look at each article, and thus stand corrected on that matter. Your derision, however, is not called for. When it is brought out that several admins unilaterally used their position to do something that not been discussed by the vaunted consensus process, I wonder at the integrity of that process.  I am obviously not the only one, as evidenced by several pages of fairly heated debate about it.  I also consider it little wonder that you lose editors with this type of thing going on.  I've found (elsewhere) that volunteers like to be appreciated, not pissed on, ignored, discarded, or talked down to.  YMMV, of course.  --RavanAsteris (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) As I do not have comprehensive knowledge of the actions of the admins in question, I am reluctant to state that I am fully in agreement with this addendum. I would state, however, that the purported actions -- if true -- are unacceptable and go against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. However, I must agree with HJ Mitchell above, in that their actions have brought excellent coverage of a major problem on Wikipedia. I do not agree with their proposal for fixing the problem, but it must be acknowledged that they were successful in bringing it into the spotlight. – The Fiddly Leprechaun  ·  Catch Me!  19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)