Geoff Burling (llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com) [050121 20:31]:
I had much the same thought today. After all, we mark
a number
of articles with {{NPOV}} or {{disptued}}, so why not create
a category for articles where the normal rules of behavior
on Wikipedia are replaced with more stringent ones actively
monitored to enforce compliance?
Articles would then be moved in & out of that category much as
we vote on articles at {{VfD}} or for Featured Article status.
The more stringent rules would then be set up with the goal of
hammering out compromise language & ending these interminable
disputes -- while adhering to the goals of NPOV.
At the same time, this new approach should only be done if it
adds a negligible amount -- or no -- extra burden to the ArbCom.
I must say I've been tempted to propose that all edits on en: from the
Middle East in general be blocked ...
(though it turns out the worst POV-warriors edit from the US. Bah!)
I've spun out a few different mechanisms for how
these zones
could work, but it's far more important to see if there's a
consensus on Wikipedia that this is an idea worth trying first.
And I have to admit I'm not entirely keen on the idea myself:
telling people that certain parts of Wikipedia are under
"martial law" somehow just doesn't fit with the image *I* have
for this project.
Per-article would lead to article forks (even tho' forks get a rapid
"redirect or delete" response from VFD).
Per-category is susceptible to people removing an obvious categorisation.
Per-topic is a bit subjective; the ArbCom places such restrictions on
troublesome individuals as needed, but not as yet on given topics even for
well-behaved editors.
Having (whatever)s voted in and out of such restrictions is an interesting
and plausible idea, though. If we can work out a way to do it.
- d.