Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/BLP Special Enforcement


 * Community discussion: Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy keep – The footnoted quotes arbitration case has now closed and the committee has made a remedy involving the use of special enforcement page to log actions done under the remedy. The committee’s decisions are binding, and they are in force for the duration stated or until the committee vote to remove the remedy. Given that the remedy is now active, MfD is not the route to appeal this. The place where the log is situated (out of arbitration space, unlike the norm which is on the case page itself) does not change the ruling that the committee has made. If there are problems with the remedy, please express them as a request for clarification, but a deletion does not solve any problems that people have with the specific remedy.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log


Approaching an issue like this with the solution above is only likely to amplify the issues if a BLP problem occurs. The ArbCom have, it seems, issued (despite community feeling expressed against the idea) a proclamation that all admins should be able to take "special enforcement measures" on BLP articles, introducing this proposal in a way which draws a startling comparison with the 42 days issue in the Commons (for our UK viewers!). The problem for us is that here is no "upper house" to throw the legislation out here, and it's down to, us, the community to flex our collective muscle and develop what the ArbCom have decreed into a workable policy. This template, I would submit, has no place in such a policy - not in its current form, and I would seek to prevent its immediate use, at least until a community consensus is shown in favour of the policy. — Martinp23 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is also worth discussing just what powers admins should have wrt BLPs. I'd certainly suggest it would be a sensible discussion to have, somewhere, before implementing the ArbCom dictat. Martinp23 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I definitely feel that this template is too bitey - we could be dealing with only a minor issue here, but be forced to use our powers by ArbCom, when it is completely unneeded, and over the top. :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that ArbCom has no business making policies; that's the role of the community. Now, if the community wants to approve this, okay, but otherwise all actions related to this should be stopped. Monobi (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Or Arbspace it. The case passed 7-1, there will be warning and blocks made pursuant to it, it is far better that people know what they are being warned for and the serious nature of it.   MBisanz  talk 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom doesn't make policy and this needs community discussion. "One warning" is, I'm told, not even backed up in the so-called "remedy" that arbcom propose. Martinp23 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure MfD is capable of acting as a review of decisions by the Arbitration Committee. (changed this, because my comment was originally about the TfD of MBisanz' template). AvruchT * ER 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be my failing in being unable to think of a better place likely to get community attention. I mean real community attention.  Any ideas? Martinp23 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete— unneeded bureaucracy. It's time we pull the plug on ArbCom. Monobi (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a TFD on a BLP warning template, not a deletion discussion on Arbcom, do you realize that?  MBisanz  talk 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can't let these illogical remedies be passed. I view this template as an aid to the silliness. Monobi (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Regarding the template only) I dunno. Do we need a template for everything? The (not yet final) Arbcom decision says "Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them" (emphasis mine). Where's the counseling part in the template? And why does the template say "Pursuant to Arbcom finding this is the only warning you will receive on this matter"? That sounds as if the Arbcom finding mandates that there should be only one warning, which is not true, of course. Why can't we use handwritten warnings and counselings instead? Are we really that lazy? --Conti|✉ 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the template can certainly be modified, it was my rough first draft of something that says "THIS IS SERIOUS, STOP IT". Maybe a softer tone or more counseling.  MBisanz  talk 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conti, I took another look based on your comments and made some changes at BLP Spec Warn. Is it the right direction?  MBisanz  talk 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict, reply to new wording below) I'd very much prefer a friendlier tone, yes. But in the end, the issue is too complex for a template, IMHO. In some cases, the warning user should provide diffs to show what exactly has been done wrong, in others those diffs should not be used for BLP reasons. Sometimes it's enough to mention an article in the warning, in other cases (when a user is extensively editing an article, and just a part of the edits are a BLP problem, for example) there should be an explanation which edits were a problem, and what part of the BLP policy was violated. And I don't think we could squeeze all these things into a template, while an equally long, handwritten message would do the trick. So I don't think a template is really necessary here. --Conti|✉ 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, and it's definitely better, but it doesn't change my general opinion that the template isn't needed. It might be useful for newbies who don't know much about our policies, but then again, we don't need to impose the "BLP Special Enforcement" on them, right? --Conti|✉ 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the template per Conti (single warning is not based on findings; case-specific warnings far better). Neutral on the log as, although I question its necessity, I'm not sure we can overrule something ArbCom will/has state(d) here at MfD. May reconsider the issue after more comments, GDonato (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The community can do whatever they wherever they like so long as there is consensus to do it in that way :) Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: What I'd really like to delete is the ArbCom's attitude that it has the power to not only make policy, but to do it in an underhanded manner as a remedy tacked onto an unrelated case, like the U.S. Congress does with pork-barrel boondoggles. But unfortunately, there is no place to bring up a deletion debate for that.  This log and template are peripheral, and deleting them without deleting the ArbCom-imposed remedy they relate to would be meaningless and even harmful, if the remedy were to end up being enforced without even a place to formally note it.  But I note that the template offers absolutely no indication of any manner by which somebody who disagrees with the assessment of some particular edit being a BLP violation can challenge this assertion; it's just letting any admin declare this by fiat and give an "I'm right; you're wrong; this is your last warning; sit down and shut up!" notice. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a log folks. The decision will not magically vanish if this page is deleted. 1  !=  2  22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.