- If the purpose of the edit was merely to "tighten" language, meaning to leave the policy as-is but the page better worded, then surely the language should remain unchanged if people think that the changes alter policy. If the intent is to make the policy more permissive of unilateralism on the part of administrators performing summary deletions, and to impose additional burdens on editors challenging such content edits by administrators, then I doubt there is widespread consensus for that given the course of the RfCs. The badlydrawnjeff link is unhelpful for a number of reasons. First, ArbCom does not pronounce policy. It sets forth statements of principle that are the basis of making decisions, but those only extend to the case at hand. Taking them as general rules that apply to all cases is a bit like jumping seven times on your left foot before every meal because a religious text says the deity once instructed a messenger to do so. Linking to well-decided cases that address an issue can be useful for serious review and contemplation of the issues at hand, but that is not very practical in this case because the entire case has been blanked save for four statements of principle. Turning to those statements, three of the ones relating to this policy do not seem to be completely aligned with consensus.
- First, "where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned... such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached". That is no good as a blanket statement. If there is a serious, reasonable, substantive, good faith BLP challenge to the appropriateness of material then yes, on balance it should be removed - not until there is consensus to include it, but rather until the objections are overcome, whether by rewording, sourcing, etc. Factors that weigh against this are the strength of the arguments for inclusion, status quo, and the outcome of previous discussions on the matter. Allowing simple deletion and shifting the burden as a blanket matter encourages unilateral deletions, and would permit the sort of content deletions of uncontentious verifiable but uncited material that gave rise to an RfC and seem to be rejected by the community.
- Second, "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article .. if they believe that it ... significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy" is directly against consensus to the extent the administrator's beliefs on policy are not consensus beliefs, as in the case of the recent spate of deletions of unsourced articles. The sticking point is "acting on their own judgment" and "if they believe". It is lacking provisos having to do with good faith, consensus, process, and reasonable interpretations of policy.
- Third and finally, " the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." - is simply not correct policy. Although the core of the statement has a policy basis, the wording is overbroad to the point of absurdity if intended as a general rule about BLP deletions. Per CSD, articles may be speedily deleted (and by implication, recreating these repeatedly can be considered disruptive) if the new form is substantially the same and does not address the reasons for deletion. It follows that if an article is deleted on BLP grounds through reasonable application of process, one shouldn't recreate it unless it can be done in a way that addresses the reasons for deletion. However, there are many BLP deletions that can be easily overcome. For example, an article about a notable person might be deleted because it contains no salvageable verifiable material, or is so thoroughly POV that it cannot be saved. Recreating it in BLP-compliant form does not need prior consensus. This sort of thing happens routinely.
- Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
