User talk:Promethean/Archives2010/January

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Prop 1
Hey Promethean. I've marked several topics as having reached consensus on Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_response/2009_Revamp/Proposal_1 which you have been involved in. Please comment-out the consensus template if you feel it hasn't been reached. After a week I plan to amend the proposal with the topics which have reached consensus so that we can try to move forward. Cheers and thanks. Thorncrag   22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your trout
There is no current policy mandating, or indeed authorizing, the mass deletion of unsourced but non-contentious RFCs. The proposal for speedy deleting such articles at the ongoing RFC is clearly establishing a consensus against such deletions. Some variant on the WP:PROD process may obtain consensus as a new policy for fairly rapidly deleting such articles, but, I suspect and hope, only with significant restrictions. In the meantime disruptive editing and particularly the disruptive use of the deletion button is, and should be, a blockable act. See WP:BLOCK and Deletion policy, which lists as one reason "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". It does not list "Articles not currently sourced". Deletion policy says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Deletion policy says "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion." this fairly clearly implies, and the practice of the project and general consensus confirm, that pages can not be summarily deleted when they do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. "Unsourced BLP" is not one of the criteria, and proposals to make it one have been made several times at WT:CSD and more recently at the RFC, all such proposals have failed, with a sizable consensus against them. WP:BLP says "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." and "Page deletion is normally a last resort." ( emphasis added ). WP:BLP also refers to WP:DEL and thus clearly does not intend to authorize deletions not within WP:DEL The persistent page deletions for which I issued a brief block did not comply with any of these policies and was IMO disruptive and improper. Various ArbCom members have said that although they authorized the deletions (many of which have since been undone) under the circumstances, continuing with mas deletions would not be appropriate pending the development of consensus on a new process to handle unsourced BLPs.

Your trout should make a tasty meal. Further discussion of the substance of BLP deletion policy is IMO best done at the RFC. DES (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)