What about Beeblebub?

[EricBarbour]

I know Malleus hates him, but he seems like a decent enough guy to me.

I've looked into his history far more closely than you have, and trust me, he's not "decent enough".

[tarantino]

He says he is from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula at his page, but I figure this is a red herring. Anyone else?

Eh, I don't see a compelling case for poking around there. I know Malleus hates him, but he seems like a decent enough guy to me. He tells people to fuck off all the time, but they almost always need to be told to fuck off anyway.

As I mentioned in another thread, he makes no secret he's from Homer.

[Triptych]

As I mentioned in another thread, he makes no secret he's from Homer.

I stand corrected.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

He says he is from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula at his page, but I figure this is a red herring. Anyone else?

Eh, I don't see a compelling case for poking around there. I know Malleus hates him, but he seems like a decent enough guy to me. He tells people to fuck off all the time, but they almost always need to be told to fuck off anyway.

As I mentioned in another thread, he makes no secret he's from Homer.

I've been as critical of Beeblebrox as anybody, I think, in my ArbCom Election guide and in related discussions (on his civility questionaire). However, this discussion, like others before, is turning creepy.

Please discuss only his on-Wikipedia problematic behavior, and avoid discussing anything about his private life, unless there is a clear severe COI problem (or similar problem) that you are documenting.

[Triptych]

He says he is from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula at his page, but I figure this is a red herring. Anyone else?

Eh, I don't see a compelling case for poking around there. I know Malleus hates him, but he seems like a decent enough guy to me. He tells people to fuck off all the time, but they almost always need to be told to fuck off anyway.

As I mentioned in another thread, he makes no secret he's from Homer.

I've been as critical of Beeblebrox as anybody, I think, in my ArbCom Election guide and in related discussions (on his civility questionaire). However, this discussion, like others before, is turning creepy.

Please discuss only his on-Wikipedia problematic behavior, and avoid discussing anything about his private life, unless there is a clear severe COI problem (or similar problem) that you are documenting.

Administrators need to be responsible for their actions and their words. I think his engineering the disappearance of his "stay off my talkpage you little shit" remark is the confirmation of a sense not only that he dodges responsibility, but that he's more than a bit around-the-corner, i.e. not straightforward. I think his essays also tend toward the loathsome, he inhabits (figuratively, anyway) this little shack where he ruminates at length about how to get rid of editors, and derives self-esteem from that. This is borne out by his stats: two thousand whatever blocked, it's like McDonald's in 1953. As well, he makes routinely asinine comments unbefitting an admin. So, when this stuff gets to an extreme, it does indeed become a bit "who is saying and doing these things?"

A broader way of looking at is that maybe this is facet of watchdog Wikipediocracy's response to outrageous things done at Wikipedia by those emboldened by anonymity. In this problem, some here have faulted editors that harm the subjects of BLPs. There's more concrete examples, but Carrie Fisher is unhappy with her unflattering one. My position is less about common editors, but more about holding those with authority (admins, checkusers, arbs) to account. And as one who recognizes the amazing effect and potential of Wikipedia I think this is the real problem: they are not held to account.

The two recent arb resignees referenced this indirectly with the "outing" stuff, but are they really fleeing the Wikipedia Mangler, or an accountability for their actions? I think anybody who ever ran the checkuser tool needs to have his name on file, better if public, but maybe just in a cabinet at Wikimedia Foundation. And this is not currently the case.

[Randy from Boise]

He says he is from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula at his page, but I figure this is a red herring. Anyone else?

Eh, I don't see a compelling case for poking around there. I know Malleus hates him, but he seems like a decent enough guy to me. He tells people to fuck off all the time, but they almost always need to be told to fuck off anyway.

As I mentioned in another thread, he makes no secret he's from Homer.

I've been as critical of Beeblebrox as anybody, I think, in my ArbCom Election guide and in related discussions (on his civility questionaire). However, this discussion, like others before, is turning creepy.

Please discuss only his on-Wikipedia problematic behavior, and avoid discussing anything about his private life, unless there is a clear severe COI problem (or similar problem) that you are documenting.

+1

RfB

[Hex]

+1 on that also.

On topic, I just noticed a characteristic bit of fine relations work from Bub at Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick, being dismissive of an editor making a good point about the questionable utility of the essay.

[Triptych]

+1 on that also.

On topic, I just noticed a characteristic bit of fine relations work from Bub at Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick, being dismissive of an editor making a good point about the questionable utility of the essay.

Sentiment x 3 noted.

[Tarc]

+1 on that also.

On topic, I just noticed a characteristic bit of fine relations work from Bub at Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick, being dismissive of an editor making a good point about the questionable utility of the essay.

Sentiment x 3 noted.

A few times a year some hand-wringer drops by and harrumphs a bit, nothing more. No problems with beeblebrox's responses.

[Hex]

A few times a year some hand-wringer drops by and harrumphs a bit, nothing more. No problems with beeblebrox's responses.

Horseshit. "Don't be a dick" is sophomoric crap that only escaped going in the trash years ago because David Gerard punted it to Meta. It's a perfect example of the kind of non-rule rule garbage that the project has in lieu of actual rules.

[Peter Damian]

A few times a year some hand-wringer drops by and harrumphs a bit, nothing more. No problems with beeblebrox's responses.

Horseshit. "Don't be a dick" is sophomoric crap that only escaped going in the trash years ago because David Gerard punted it to Meta. It's a perfect example of the kind of non-rule rule garbage that the project has in lieu of actual rules.

+1

[neved]

A few times a year some hand-wringer drops by and harrumphs a bit, nothing more. No problems with beeblebrox's responses.

Horseshit. "Don't be a dick" is sophomoric crap that only escaped going in the trash years ago because David Gerard punted it to Meta. It's a perfect example of the kind of non-rule rule garbage that the project has in lieu of actual rules.

+1

+1

[roger_pearse]

Rules are no substitute for good management. In the absence of the latter, on any project, you get ... well, what we see in Wikipedia.

[Tarc]

Horseshit.

Not horseshit at all. In any social setting, if people simply followed that one rule genuinely then there'd be little need for many others. Gerard, king hypocrite himself, included.

+1

Speaking of hypocrites... Damian, the entire premise of your "book", the existence of which is hitting a Brian Wilson-like level of will-it-or-won't-it ever come to pass, is to be a dick to those who have themselves been dicks for years.

[EricBarbour]

Speaking of hypocrites... Damian, the entire premise of your "book", the existence of which is hitting a Brian Wilson-like level of will-it-or-won't-it ever come to pass, is to be a dick to those who have themselves been dicks for years.

Having not seen the MS, how would you possibly know? Is it your turn to be the dick?

[Tarc]

Speaking of hypocrites... Damian, the entire premise of your "book", the existence of which is hitting a Brian Wilson-like level of will-it-or-won't-it ever come to pass, is to be a dick to those who have themselves been dicks for years.

Having not seen the MS, how would you possibly know? Is it your turn to be the dick?

I'm always a dick, Barbie.

[EricBarbour]

Speaking of hypocrites... Damian, the entire premise of your "book", the existence of which is hitting a Brian Wilson-like level of will-it-or-won't-it ever come to pass, is to be a dick to those who have themselves been dicks for years.

Having not seen the MS, how would you possibly know? Is it your turn to be the dick?

I'm always a dick, Barbie.

No one's stopping you from writing your own book, sweetie.

[Peter Damian]

Speaking of hypocrites... Damian, the entire premise of your "book", the existence of which is hitting a Brian Wilson-like level of will-it-or-won't-it ever come to pass, is to be a dick to those who have themselves been dicks for years.

You can follow the progress by looking at diffs here http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... on=history . You can see that most chapters are at first draft stage, some are going into second draft. My book on Scotus took five years, this one I hope not quite so long. It is intended as a history and an explanation of Wikipedia, and for that reason very few individual Wikipedians are discussed, except as their story illustrates the mechanisms of the project. As the blurb says "The book aims to explain why Wikipedia is the way it is, through an examination of its origins, its history, its design, its governance and culture. "

[mac]

Speaking of hypocrites... Damian, the entire premise of your "book", the existence of which is hitting a Brian Wilson-like level of will-it-or-won't-it ever come to pass, is to be a dick to those who have themselves been dicks for years.

Having not seen the MS, how would you possibly know? Is it your turn to be the dick?

I'm always a dick, Barbie.

No one's stopping you from writing your own book, sweetie.

[Triptych]

A few times a year some hand-wringer drops by and harrumphs a bit, nothing more. No problems with beeblebrox's responses.

Horseshit. "Don't be a dick" is sophomoric crap that only escaped going in the trash years ago because David Gerard punted it to Meta. It's a perfect example of the kind of non-rule rule garbage that the project has in lieu of actual rules.

Beebs didn't write that one. It's by some editor named "Foohouse." It's as self-absorbed and smirking and positive-value-devoid as any Beebs essay though. Maybe not as damaging though, because it got link-buried down on Meta as you say. The problem with Beebs' essays and I suppose others like the vile WP:DUCK that is cited to block editors on the basis of [begin] "suspicion" [full-stop] is that they are used as policy, but when someone actually goes and looks and says "what is this bull?!" the comeback is "but that is just an essay!" I figure all policy-related "essays" that have somehow attained the "WP:______" hotlink should be wiped out or pushed off to Meta.

I noticed that Beebs has been a "resident of the Kenai Peninsula" for 15 years.

[Hex]

I figure all policy-related "essays" that have somehow attained the "WP:______" hotlink should be wiped out or pushed off to Meta.

Anything that isn't a policy shouldn't get an uppercase WP: shortcut. Unfortunately, it's far too late to fix that learned bad behavior.

[Wer900]

Beeblebrox once threatened me with a topic ban for proposing a centralized governance system several times, in a form that he believed to be too similar, too fast. I was told to suggest a similar proposal in six months. Even though he cited WP:POINT, he failed to acknowledge that he and his cronies were the ones truly disrupting Wikipedia, participating in endless debates about contentious topics, internal power plays, and debates and processes themselves. Never have these cabals given relent to our community, never have they let ArbCom gain real power, never have they even allowed a system for appropriate policymaking, admin regulation, and content review survive to be debated by the broader community.

On the issue of Beebelbrox's anonymity, now is not the time to broach it. We should wait until something really egregious happens before doing so.

[Cla68]

Beeblebrox once threatened me with a topic ban for proposing a centralized governance system several times...

Do you have a link? I'd like to see the entire conversation.

[Wer900]

Beeblebrox once threatened me with a topic ban for proposing a centralized governance system several times...

Do you have a link? I'd like to see the entire conversation.

link

The above is a Wikipediocracy thread started earlier by me, but it does contain links to the relevant diffs. Also, to resolve ambiguity, the threat was only once; I proposed several times a better governance system.

[Triptych]

Beebs to Wer900: "your idea has been strongly rejected. If you re-present it again anytime soon it is extremely likely that you will face some sort of topic ban or sanction per WP:POINT."

[Tarc]

Beebs to Wer900: "your idea has been strongly rejected. If you re-present it again anytime soon it is extremely likely that you will face some sort of topic ban or sanction per WP:POINT."

Works for me. This is how we keep the birther retards at bay in Obama articles.

[Wer900]

Beebs to Wer900: "your idea has been strongly rejected. If you re-present it again anytime soon it is extremely likely that you will face some sort of topic ban or sanction per WP:POINT."

Works for me. This is how we keep the birther retards at bay in Obama articles.

What about Beeblef**k and his gangland cronies? Don't they do more "disruption" on the site than a relatively new astrophysics editor like me?

[Randy from Boise]

I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get to read it, I just want to know it's possible to get back to it. I want admins behaving as if they might be held personally responsible for their actions and words.

Does having the WMF know your name make you accountable? Ask Daniel Brandt.

Does Daniel Brandt knowing your name make you more accountable? Ask hive mind...

It got his WP article deleted, didn't it?

Interesting mechanism for the Wikipedia to muzzle one's critics, though. If a person who once had their bio deleted on "marginally notable BLP" grounds in the future does something notable enough to be covered by a reliable source, an argument could be made that that tips the scales back towards notability.

I fucking HATE the presumption of some at WP that "marginally notable" BLP subjects have the power to decide the fate of their own biography one way or the other. That should be 100% irrelevant, or at least 99% irrelevant. Notability determination needs to be an objective, precedent- and standards-based process, not a place for good ol' boy backstage politics or a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

No opinion on Daniel Brandt, I haven't studied that matter, but I am and always will be a "hawk" on this general question.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get to read it, I just want to know it's possible to get back to it. I want admins behaving as if they might be held personally responsible for their actions and words.

Does having the WMF know your name make you accountable? Ask Daniel Brandt.

Does Daniel Brandt knowing your name make you more accountable? Ask hive mind...

It got his WP article deleted, didn't it?

Interesting mechanism for the Wikipedia to muzzle one's critics, though. If a person who once had their bio deleted on "marginally notable BLP" grounds in the future does something notable enough to be covered by a reliable source, an argument could be made that that tips the scales back towards notability.

I fucking HATE the presumption of some at WP that "marginally notable" BLP subjects have the power to decide the fate of their own biography one way or the other. That should be 100% irrelevant, or at least 99% irrelevant. Notability determination needs to be an objective, precedent- and standards-based process, not a place for good ol' boy backstage politics or a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

No opinion on Daniel Brandt, I haven't studied that matter, but I am and always will be a "hawk" on this general question.

RfB

BZZZZZZZZZT!

Marginally notable BLP subjects shouldn't have an article to begin with.
If they ask not to have one, then WP should do the decent thing and delete and salt their BLP.

Anything less is just cruel.

[thekohser]

...a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

I think Jimbo knows of a place in Moscow where you can get a really satisfying bio-greasing.

[Vigilant]

...a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

I think Jimbo knows of a place in Moscow where you can get a really satisfying bio-greasing.

Do they take credit cards?

[EricBarbour]

Notability determination needs to be an objective, precedent- and standards-based process, not a place for good ol' boy backstage politics or a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

The one thing they don't have, and have fought over consistently since 2001. Good luck getting a "process" set up.

[Wer900]

Notability determination needs to be an objective, precedent- and standards-based process, not a place for good ol' boy backstage politics or a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

The one thing they don't have, and have fought over consistently since 2001. Good luck getting a "process" set up.

There are good reasons why I have agitated for an elected assembly, content review boards, and and Administrator Review Committee. They are the same reasons why Beeblebrox is so vehemently opposed to those proposals.

[Triptych]

Notability determination needs to be an objective, precedent- and standards-based process, not a place for good ol' boy backstage politics or a place where squeaking wheels go to get their biographies greased.

The one thing they don't have, and have fought over consistently since 2001. Good luck getting a "process" set up.

There are good reasons why I have agitated for an elected assembly, content review boards, and and Administrator Review Committee. They are the same reasons why Beeblebrox is so vehemently opposed to those proposals.

The Ombudsman Commission is soliciting comments about broadening its responsibilities if you want to chime in. "We will begin to hear complaints containing allegations that Checkusers and Oversighters have violated the global Checkuser and Oversight policies..." "If a complaining user has gone through local processes and is not satisfied with the response, we may consider the complaint and investigate if given a compelling reason why we should do so." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests ... Commission.

No, it's not what you're describing at all, but it means an editor has somewhere to go besides picketing WMF at 149 New Montgomery Street in San Francisco when the funhouse tactics, bully behavior, and repetitive privacy abuses by admins and arbs start to fray his nerve.

[Poetlister]

Marginally notable BLP subjects shouldn't have an article to begin with.

That makes no sense. Somewhere, there is a line to be drawn between "notable" and "not notable". I don't know exactly where the line is, and I'm sure that the Wikipedia rules put it in the wrong place and are anyway inconsistently applied. However, let us say for the sake of argument that the line is clear. If someone is on the "notable" side, however slightly, then his/her biography should be kept. To say that if someone is just over the line he/she should not have a biography is to contradict the definition of the line.

Of course, BLPs and indeed all articles need to be protected against vandals and malicious editors. That's another issue.

I would say that there are two great fallacies that many people here seem to believe:

* That all, or even a substantial proportion of BLPs are problems. Yes, quite a few are, and each case is bad, but if we exaggerate the problem too much, we risk losing credibility.

* That if we could solve the BLP problem, that would be it. Almost any article could be a vehicle for defamation; see WP:COATRACK.

[EricBarbour]

Somewhere, there is a line to be drawn between "notable" and "not notable".

No one on WP has ever done that, and they never will. People have argued over it since it began.

And one thing you'll notice in those idiot arguments, now up to 14 archives since 2009:
rarely does anyone say "how do other reference works determine if someone is notable enough to document?"

You can't even Google for information on general biography notability standards, all it does is bury you in Wikipedia drivel.

[Poetlister]

Somewhere, there is a line to be drawn between "notable" and "not notable".

No one on WP has ever done that, and they never will. People have argued over it since it began.

And one thing you'll notice in those idiot arguments, now up to 14 archives since 2009:
rarely does anyone say "how do other reference works determine if someone is notable enough to document?"

You can't even Google for information on general biography notability standards, all it does is bury you in Wikipedia drivel.

I quite agree. I did say "let us say for the sake of argument that the line is clear". My point was that you can't argue that marginally notable people should automatically be excluded. Do you know the paradox "what is the smallest non-interesting number"?

[The Joy]

Do you know the paradox "what is the smallest non-interesting number"?

Um.. "true." I'll go with "true."

[Zoloft]

Do you know the paradox "what is the smallest non-interesting number"?

Yes, I know that paradox.

Hm... that was suspiciously easy for a trick question.

[Mason]

If someone is on the "notable" side, however slightly, then his/her biography should be kept.

Untrue. According to their own rules, notability is merely one factor, albeit a big one, which determines whether an article will be kept. Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion (T-H-L), which lists notability as number 8 in a list of 14 reasons.

What you're advocating is a narrow, mechanical, black-or-white approach that's even worse than what they do now. When you're a top-ten website, ignoring the impact on and wishes of the people affected by what you do is simply unethical.

[Poetlister]

If someone is on the "notable" side, however slightly, then his/her biography should be kept.

Untrue. According to their own rules, notability is merely one factor, albeit a big one, which determines whether an article will be kept. Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion (T-H-L), which lists notability as number 8 in a list of 14 reasons.

I think that you've missed my point. Vigilant asserted that "Marginally notable BLP subjects shouldn't have an article to begin with". I claim that if someone is notable, the article cannot logically be deleted on grounds that he or she is only a little bit notable. It's like being only a little bit pregnant.

When you're a top-ten website, ignoring the impact on and wishes of the people affected by what you do is simply unethical.

A good point, but you fail to point out that while notability is on the list of reasons for deletion, wishes of the subject does not seem to be.

Maybe this discussion should be split off.

[Vigilant]

If someone is on the "notable" side, however slightly, then his/her biography should be kept.

Untrue. According to their own rules, notability is merely one factor, albeit a big one, which determines whether an article will be kept. Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion (T-H-L), which lists notability as number 8 in a list of 14 reasons.

I think that you've missed my point. Vigilant asserted that "Marginally notable BLP subjects shouldn't have an article to begin with". I claim that if someone is notable, the article cannot logically be deleted on grounds that he or she is only a little bit notable. It's like being only a little bit pregnant.

When you're a top-ten website, ignoring the impact on and wishes of the people affected by what you do is simply unethical.

A good point, but you fail to point out that while notability is on the list of reasons for deletion, wishes of the subject does not seem to be.

Maybe this discussion should be split off.

Let me be more plain.
There are three classes of people whom might be "favored" with BLP on wikipedia.
1) Completely notable. Their absence would be noticeable and silly. e.g. Barack Obama
2) Completely non-notable. Man on the street with slim to nil in the way of notice. e.g. Man on the street
3) Marginally notable. You have to work to get an article together. e.g. Greh Kohs.

In the first two cases, it's obvious what needs to be done.
In the third case, the subject's desires should trump all other considerations.

In addition, anyone editing BLPs should be forced to use their real name.

[EricBarbour]

Let me be more plain.
There are three classes of people whom might be "favored" with BLP on wikipedia.
1) Completely notable. Their absence would be noticeable and silly. e.g. Barack Obama
2) Completely non-notable. Man on the street with slim to nil in the way of notice. e.g. Man on the street
3) Marginally notable. You have to work to get an article together. e.g. Greh Kohs.

In the first two cases, it's obvious what needs to be done.
In the third case, the subject's desires should trump all other considerations.

In addition, anyone editing BLPs should be forced to use their real name.

Thank you. Sometimes you have to beat them over the head with a tree so they will see the forest.

[Vigilant]

Let me be more plain.
There are three classes of people whom might be "favored" with BLP on wikipedia.
1) Completely notable. Their absence would be noticeable and silly. e.g. Barack Obama
2) Completely non-notable. Man on the street with slim to nil in the way of notice. e.g. Man on the street
3) Marginally notable. You have to work to get an article together. e.g. Greh Kohs.

In the first two cases, it's obvious what needs to be done.
In the third case, the subject's desires should trump all other considerations.

In addition, anyone editing BLPs should be forced to use their real name.

Thank you. Sometimes you have to beat them over the head with a tree so they will see the forest.

I wonder how many of the existing BLPs would fall into class 3.

[EricBarbour]

I wonder how many of the existing BLPs would fall into class 3.

Easily 80% or more. Britannica has about 22,500 biographies, Wikipedia has 1 million, of which ~680,000 are living.
It is a safe bet that all of the Britannica biographies are clearly notable people, alive or not.

[Scott5114]

I wonder how many of the existing BLPs would fall into class 3.

Easily 80% or more. Britannica has about 22,500 biographies, Wikipedia has 1 million, of which ~680,000 are living.
It is a safe bet that all of the Britannica biographies are clearly notable people, alive or not.

I think it's a bit unfair to Wikipedia to use Britannica's inclusion choices as a yardstick to measure how many of Wikipedia's BLPs are worth of the scrap heap. Part of the reason that Britannica has much more rigorous inclusion standards is because it is limited on resources (column inches, money to pay writers and proofreaders) in ways that Wikipedia is not. So Britannica will be forced to cut articles on some subjects that Wikipedia can get away with keeping. Whether it should do so for any given topic is an entirely different subject, of course.

[Vigilant]

I wonder how many of the existing BLPs would fall into class 3.

Easily 80% or more. Britannica has about 22,500 biographies, Wikipedia has 1 million, of which ~680,000 are living.
It is a safe bet that all of the Britannica biographies are clearly notable people, alive or not.

I think it's a bit unfair to Wikipedia to use Britannica's inclusion choices as a yardstick to measure how many of Wikipedia's BLPs are worth of the scrap heap. Part of the reason that Britannica has much more rigorous inclusion standards is because it is limited on resources (column inches, money to pay writers and proofreaders) in ways that Wikipedia is not. So Britannica will be forced to cut articles on some subjects that Wikipedia can get away with keeping. Whether it should do so for any given topic is an entirely different subject, of course.

If you think 80%(0.8) is too high, please proffer a number of your own between 0 and 1.
Multiply your number, x, by 1,000,000 and tell us how many biographies wikipedia should delete tomorrow.

[Midsize Jake]

This thread started with a bad, and largely hysterical, misinterpretation about User:Beetlebum or Beeblebub or whatever he calls himself, based on the following observation:

The anonymous admins in many occasions are thus exercising control over the open and not-particularly anonymous editors. This is a defect in the model.

...and this was correct, it is a defect in the model, but not necessarily one that would threaten the existence of WP if not corrected. Many of WP's more useful contributors are driven off in similar scenarios, but that could just as easily happen any number of other ways. The lack of an opt-out policy for BLPs, on the other hand, might ultimately lead to legislation and various other forms of governmental interference affecting the entire internet that could easily threaten WPs existence, but it's been at least 8 years since it was proposed, and we're no closer now than we were 8 years ago.

Back in January 2007 on WR, in a thread that touched on the question of which BLP subjects should be eligible for opt-out - and how many of them actually would - I theorized that only about 150-200 BLP articles would be deleted within the first year under a "reasonable" opt-out policy. At that time I vaguely recall that there were only about 150,000 BLPs, and my assumption was that about 1 percent of subjects didn't want the articles to exist, and about 10 percent of that 1 percent would actually take action to get them deleted.

Those numbers were not based entirely on guesswork - they were based on close monitoring of the relevant WP venues and a count of subjects, derived from that monitoring, who had made known their desire to have their articles deleted. I still believe to this day that most WP'ers knew these estimates were realistic, even though at the time, idiots like Erik Moeller went out of their way to say things like, "if we allow this, everyone will want their article deleted! We'll lose 100,000 articles overnight!" and other such nonsense. Wait, did I say "idiots"? I meant to say "fucking stupid idiots."

Obviously the vast majority of people who have WP articles are flattered by them and would not want them deleted. The exceptions are, and remain, ongoing revenge-editor targets - and while Wikipedia has proven again and again that they can't control (much less stop) revenge editing, the number of articles affected is still very small, percentage-wise.

Still, in the 7 years since, the number of BLPs has more than quadrupled, WP's reputation for fairness and decency (much less accountability) has declined, and the overall quality of the content has gotten worse, even as the amount has massively increased. So, if an opt-out policy were to be implemented now, my guess is that the number of people wanting to opt out would be on the order of 10,000, and the percentage of people willing to take action would be higher, due to increased adoption of social media reducing their levels of intimidation, as well as ever-greater awareness of Wikipedia (and its Google footprint) in general. My revised guess would be a loss of roughly 3,000 articles within the first year, and maybe about 500 per year after that. But that's still such a tiny fraction of the total as to be almost negligible.

Another key point that often isn't mentioned is that the existence of an opt-out policy would almost certainly reduce the incentive for revenge-editing in the first place. If the subject can simply opt-out, the serial revenge editor isn't going to waste his time, and will presumably go elsewhere. (At least in theory.)

Long story short, the arguments for an opt-out policy are so good, and the arguments against it so bad, that eventually I was forced to conclude that the only reason for rejecting the idea is that Wikipedians get some sort of perverted sexual masturbatory thrill from keeping articles that the subjects don't want. As in, they're literally jizzing all over their computer screens when the AfD closes as "Keep" in opposition to the subject's wishes. This, in turn, helps the sales of companies who make screen-cleaning fluid wipes. For a while I comforted myself in the thought that this kept workers at the screen-cleaning fluid wipe factory from losing their jobs, until I learned that nearly all screen-cleaning fluid wipes are made and packaged by robotic machines. So they don't even have that.

[Triptych]

This thread started with a bad, and largely hysterical, misinterpretation about User:Beetlebum or Beeblebub or whatever he calls himself, based on the following observation:

The anonymous admins in many occasions are thus exercising control over the open and not-particularly anonymous editors. This is a defect in the model.

...and this was correct, it is a defect in the model, but not necessarily one that would threaten the existence of WP if not corrected. Many of WP's more useful contributors are driven off in similar scenarios, but that could just as easily happen any number of other ways. The lack of an opt-out policy for BLPs, on the other hand, might ultimately lead to legislation and various other forms of governmental interference affecting the entire internet that could easily threaten WPs existence, but it's been at least 8 years since it was proposed, and we're no closer now than we were 8 years ago.

I welcome the criticism and am glad you found my interpretation humorous, however I think I stand by it. I would be in favor of an "opt-out" enshrined in policy for any subject of a BLP. Except maybe politicians.

[Triptych]

User:Beetlebum or Beeblebub or whatever he calls himself.

Well, he is an administrator not a user. I wordplayed it like that because I view him as a devil of low rank. Beelzebub.