As an alternative, Arbcom could turn the focus of the current case
away from policy and towards editor behavior in the link removal
disputes that sparked the case. Start with the same principles:
1. Wikipedia has an obligation to protect its editors from harassment.
2. Interactions between editors are generally covered by the NPA and
harassment policies.
3. Notwithstanding #1 and #2, article content is generally covered by
a different set of policies (NPOV, reliable source, verify) and only
in extreme cases should policies designed to cover editor interactions
intrude into article space.
With remedies like this:
1. Links added to project or talk pages with the intent or effect of
harassing or intimidating other editors may be removed under the
existing NPA and harassment policies, and repeat offenders may be
briefly blocked by an uninvolved admin.
2. Links added to article pages should be considered under article
content policies.
3. Disputed links in article space to be discussed on the talk page.
The normal dispute resolution processes (third opinion, RFC,
mediation) apply, and the link will be obfuscated or unlinked during
the discussion.
4. The following editors are briefly blocked or desysopped for edit
warring over link removals:
Eh?
On 10/12/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would be interesting to experiment with a process
to force
discussion and consensus, rather than allowing single-actor
edit-warring over links. But if Arbcom can't create policy, can it
create process?