...with a sideshow at Lar's talk page.

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

Lar sure knows how to host a party!

I do?

Dude, you're the hoster with the moster.

Are you sure you wouldn't be on the other side of this question if the bio was on the other side of your POV? But in any case I think your reinserting material via discussionless reversion is problematic. We should err on the side of safety. As I said before, I trust Scott's judgment more than I do yours. He seems willing to engage in discussion. You seem willing to engage in wikilawyering rather than meaningful discussion. I'm not sure there's much more to say here. I'm hopeful that ArbCom will continue to vigorously assert the principles they have in the past. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that AGF is a policy, not just a suggestion. What POV am I supposed to have about these BLPs? Will Beback talk 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that AGF is only a starting assumption and once disproved, no longer applies. Your POV on Scientology is fairly well known I think. Perhaps not quite as well known as on LaRouchism but nonetheless. Was there anything else? As I said, I don't really trust your judgment much. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I do?

Really … if I had a choice of chilling with Hef at the Playboy Mansion or Lar at his palatial estate, it is obvious where I would be!

The problem, and it's a pretty obvious one over five years after Siegenthaler, is that we knowingly and perversely retain crappy articles that we're not prepared to maintain, on the subject of living people. Only arbcom can motivate us to resolve this problem, which has only grown since the principle of deletion was established in 2007. I will ask the new Committee to take this problem on as a matter of urgency. The community is not only failing in this primary objective, it's openly and vociferously thwarting reasonable attempts to mitigate the problem. --TS 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, admins who don't seem to understand that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs should be barred from further involvement with BLP articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will may not have been involved in POV crusades over Scientology. His present focus is on the Transcendental Meditators.

And Cla68 sums the matter up thusly:

Alas, this is just another avenue for argument: does the editor 'understand'? An entire bureaucracy to allow for appeals and reviews. "BTDT".

No.

There should be a "BLP Bit", and the WMF (and only the WMF) hands it out only to those it can identify to the point that, if necessary, legal process can be initiated. To deal with nightmare the WMF has allowed to come into existence, all existing BLP's are taken down, and only brought back up when a BLP-bit editor steps forward, willing to accept ultimate responsibility for it.

Really...if I had a choice of chilling with Hef at the Playboy Mansion or Lar at his palatial estate, it is obvious where I would be!

There should be a "BLP Bit", and the WMF (and only the WMF) hands it out only to those it can identify to the point that, if necessary, legal process can be initiated.

You really don't get it do you? We've got a festering sump of BLPs, unmaintained, of questionable importance, and capable of damaging innocent people, who never asked for any involvement in Wikipedia. We need to encourage MORE vigilance and develop far stricter methods of damage limitation. If that occasionally means a bid of a trivial article or some low-interest material is inadvertently removed, then that is a price well worth paying. You, however, are utterly indifferent to the problem, and rather are myopically and selfishly concerning yourself with an inhouse squabble about how rules are written and processes followed. I have as much contempt for such such priorities as you have long had for BLP issues. I've had your card marked for a number of years.--Scott Mac 08:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, with all due respect. Just because I disagree with you on some issue doesn't mean that I shit upon BLPs. I've added more sources to BLPs than you have, I'd bet.
I've had your card marked for a number of years
What does that mean? Why so combative?
If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do...
Will Beback talk 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If by "get it" you mean understand the importance of getting BLPs right, then of course I get it. Just about every day that I edit I revert or remove inappropriate material about living people. I work as hard as anyone can be expected to in improving articles on BLPs. There are few editors who "get it" better than I do... Will Beback talk 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:

I really do NOT think Beback gets it.

Are you sure you wouldn't be on the other side of this question if the bio was on the other side of your POV?

Actually, I think that he does get it. Like any other Wikipedia policy, BLP works either at odds with your POV, or in concert with it.

I don't think we actually disagree. Or perhaps we do.

Bravo, bravo. The best and most incisive comment of the year, I feel.

It's good to see some holiday good cheer.

(Meanwhile, Will is decidedly not showing any holiday cheer.)

Why does WP need that (not)article ? It's pretty dodgily sourced and has sat around for years. While the NOINDEX helps it doesn't seem a keeper to me.

I might have to do a bit more research, but improving these articles might actually be better in the long run than simply deleting them, whether there's opposition or not.