Thinking aloud here. We know that policy on external linking is, well, not in a settled
state.
With a meta-Arbitrator's hat on, I say this: ArbCom can in the "attack
sites" case possibly explain something about implementation of existing policy,
mainly WP:HARASS. ArbCom doesn't write policy; what it typically does is to explore
the amount of "stretch" in existing policy and custom.
Policy is not showing up too well here; turn to "process".
We just have this fragment at the moment: links to ED can be speedily deleted from the
site. We are not even very advanced in templating links for "proposed
deletion"?
By the article deletion analogy: the following might work, restricted to namespaces other
than the article namespace. Have a three tier process:
- speedy deletion, restricted to ED and any sites explicitly put alongside it (so these
are the "attack sites"); {{hangon}} only on the grounds that the page is a
clearly reliable source and the link is in context.
- proposed deletion by template, to remove junk
- LfD process, to handle contested cases of proposed deletion, and also any mass deletions
of links from one "site" (mirrors etc. - what is a site?).
An obvious drawback is that the discussions in the contested cases would attract attention
(and might make ArbCom Workshop pages look like a tea party in comparison).
How would the speedy criteria work? Perhaps three-time losers under a mass deletion, plus
ArbCom remedies in cases. In other words Slashdot, Slate and so on would usually only come
under consideration after a long history.
How could an editor get "banned"? For being too out of process, or persistent
recreation of deleted links, editors could be sanctioned.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam