User:2ple/sandbox

= Wikipedia:Stalemate =

Stalemate
Often, discussion reaches a point of stalemate, in which a discussion is no longer able to continue. In most situations, however, there are scenarios in which stalemate is enough to proceed with the implementation of policies or guidelines. Stalemate is enough in these scenarios: Note: The word controversial is defined on a case-by-case basis.
 * In discussions pertaining to controversial statements about BLPs, the relevant policy should be applied.
 * In discussions pertaining to potentially harmful and uncited information about BLPs, the relevant information should be deleted.
 * In discussions pertaining to whether lead sections of BLPs are worded neutrally, they should be rewritten

Other scenarios

 * RFCs that seek to
 * Edits that delete NPOV information pertaining to an inherently controversial subject (for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), articles with multiple active arbitration remedies, or articles with recently applied extended-confirmed protection or higher should be reverted.
 * Uncited information pertaining to an inherently controversial subject, an article with multiple active arbitration remedies, or an article with recently applied extended-confirmed protection or higher should be deleted.