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@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?