Hm, I summarise the complaints: if admins will just play by the rules of consensus, discussion, and take no disruptive unilateral action, then the community consensus will deal with the BLP issues this project faces. That's so ridiculous it is funny. Hasn't happened in my 4 years of caring, and won't happen anytime soon.

This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt. No one should abide by "consensus" when consensus has time and time again shown itself to be as mature as a baby on acid. And this case? Either it will be dismissed or it will strain on the wikilawyering gnats of who blocked whom, and what was out of process - while swallowing every available camel and (to mix metaphors) elephant in the room. Arbcom may "feel the BLP pain" but they won't actually do anything useful.

Actually, even speedy deleting all unreferenced BLPs won't make all that much difference. But the community will not even go that far. Until it starts to do things like this, it will not even begin to tackle the real problem - which is that current structures can only realistically maintain the 20% of most notable BLPs to an acceptable quality wrt to libel threats.

If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholy unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community.

Source: [1] 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - - Per your stance on no consensus BLP AFDs defaulting to keep. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can you point out the policy or guideline where it instructs or recommends that they default to delete? Tan | 39 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)