Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/BLP enforcement guidance

case from which "special measures" emerged
Perhaps the guidance will include an explanation of how a BLP issue arose out of an arbitration over "footnoted quotes" in an article the subject of which is deceased, amongst other considerations like the fact the only admin who appears to have investigated the actual, particular facts of the footnoted quotes matter (and was not an ArbCom arbitrator) found against deletionism.

I'd also be very interested in seeing an example edit provided that is fully compliant with WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, WP:OR, and most importantly WP:NPOV, but still in need of deletion such that a rationale for further enforcement (of an incremental (BLP) policy) is justified.

I'd also like to see some discussion of how "harm" is defined, assessed, and circumscribed if harm or distress is, in fact, a relevant consideration and how to resolve the policy conflict that arises when notable, reliably sourced, neutral material causes damage/distress/offence.Bdell555 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad advice
Lately I've come to think that arbcom is not the place to go for guidance on anything BLP related. This page is going to be a perfect example of arbcom making decisions that are not well thought out. I fear that their attempt to clarify the issue is only going to make the situation worse. You don't make these decisions for us, arbcom, stop pretending like you do. Go back to handling cases, like you're supposed to. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That might have been more harsh than needed. -- Ned Scott 23:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bump
It's now a week overdue, or did I miss it being posted elsewhere. Hiding T 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 7, at the parent page, Charles Matthews noted this item in the category "Current for working up, review and action" with the particular comment "get a timely decision from the Committee whether to recommend to the community in this or tweaked form". I parse this as being a subject of active discussion among the committee, with a real possibility of the committee taking no action. GRBerry 01:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta. Is it just me or is this place becoming a bureaucrat's wet dream? ;) Hiding T 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)