[WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

[Matt Brown]

On 3/3/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Or editors who remove references they don't like from articles then
> nominate them for deletion as unverifiable. When bailed up on it, they say
> "but the sources are crap." What can practically be done about this?

Beat them with a very large clue-stick?

References SHOULD NEVER BE REMOVED unless alternative references for
the referenced facts are found or the information those references
support is removed from the article.  To do otherwise is completely
against the spirit of our verifiability and sourcing policies and
practise.

This is the case regardless of whether the references are
unimpeachably solid or 'According to my friend Jamie who knows about
this stuff'.

If you don't like a reference, you can do a variety of things:

* Ignore the problem
* Post a query to the article talk page, user's talk page etc.
* Find a better reference yourself
* Remove the information, preferably placing it on the talk page
unless it's defamatory in nature

One thing you cannot do is remove the reference without replacing it
and leaving the content in the article.

I suspect I know which editor you're talking about here.  They know better.

While I can't comment for my fellow arbitrators, I know that editors
have been censured by the AC for much less serious abuse of references
and verifiability, and if this kind of behaviour came before me in an
AC case I would propose/support censure.  (in other words: If you're
doing this, knock it off).

-Matt