AIUI the decision was made via standard procedure (a Request for Comments sub-page), and it was the consensus of the editors (that is, the ominous "they" in you

AIUI the decision was made via standard procedure (a Request for Comments sub-page), and it was the consensus of the editors (that is, the ominous "they" in your comment) that it is unreliable as a source. Now there is an obvious need for quality control of accepted sources in a project like Wikipedia, the process was transparent, and its conclusion is up for debate (hence being conducted through a Request for Comments). What would you propose instead?