"Thatcher131 a" wrote
If you think that Arbcom actually can CREATE a new process, I would suggest something like this (this is a pretty huge set of ideas and I wonder if ArbCom could pull it off even if it wanted to)
Thank you for your input here.
I was hoping to clarify ideas. I was hoping that the analogy with deletion process would at least bring into focus where people's particular problems. (OK, I was also hoping to be told I was a genius and had solved this one at a stroke.)
As far as I know _processes_ can be set up by anyone, but in general they need an enabling policy to validate them. As you point out, anyone can delete links. So what needs to be underwritten is only that a closure has some force, should not lightly be disregarded.
- In the event of a dispute over an attack link, the link is removed
pending discussion. 2. Discussion held at WP:LfD (so that if the outcome is "remove" there isn't a huge archive of content on the talk page needing to be deleted).
OK, assume it is good to blank some debates afterwards.
- A flag put on the article talk page pointing to LfD.
- Closed by an uninvolved admin after 5 days.
Yes, uninvolved is good.
- For links judged as "removed" the closing admin will obfuscate them.
- Editors who disrupt the article by adding or removing links while
the discussion is ongoing or against consensus after the discussion is closed can be banned from editing that article or talk page for a reasonable period (a la article probation). 7. Process to be reviewed in 6 months to see if a stable consensus on links has developed making the process no longer needed.
For this to work well, I think ArbCom's principles in the attack sites case would also have to clarify the following (I haven't been following the case so I don't know if you are close to this yet)
- Wikipedia has an obligation to protect its editors from harassment.
Ummm. No one is even obliged to log in ever again. Will this fly?
- 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.
Yes. Article space is hardly the main problem here. It's "I think this needs to be brought to the community's attention ...", and coat-racking in debates.
With remedies like this:
- 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.
We already allow this, I believe. It is not a stretch of WP:HARASS that would bother me.
- Links added to article pages should be considered under article
content policies.
Fine.
- Disputed links in article space to be discussed at LfD (and removed
during discussion). 4. Editors who disrupt the encyclopedia by removing or adding links during LfD or against consensus decided at LfD may be banned from that article (and related articles if necessary) for an appropriate period of time by an uninvolved admin; ban enforceable by blocking.
WP:POINT usually gets these guys.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 12/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
As far as I know _processes_ can be set up by anyone, but in general they need an enabling policy to validate them. As you point out, anyone can delete links. So what needs to be underwritten is only that a closure has some force, should not lightly be disregarded.
Um, no, most processes are set up as quick hacks that seem like a good idea at the time, then instruction-crept from there.
- d.
On 10/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
As far as I know _processes_ can be set up by anyone, but in general
they need an enabling policy to validate them. As you point out, anyone can delete links. So what needs to be underwritten is only that a closure has some force, should not lightly be disregarded.
Um, no, most processes are set up as quick hacks that seem like a good idea at the time, then instruction-crept from there.
- d.
I am wondering, do you think it would be a good idea to have a corresponding page for each policy page on the lines of:
[[Wikipedia:Developement of the Neutral Point Of View policy page]],
...or perhaps:
[[Wikipedia:Timeline of the Neutral Point of View policy page]] ??
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 14/10/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
As far as I know _processes_ can be set up by anyone, but in general
they need an enabling policy to validate them. As you point out, anyone can delete links. So what needs to be underwritten is only that a closure has some force, should not lightly be disregarded.
Um, no, most processes are set up as quick hacks that seem like a good idea at the time, then instruction-crept from there.
I am wondering, do you think it would be a good idea to have a corresponding page for each policy page on the lines of: [[Wikipedia:Developement of the Neutral Point Of View policy page]], ...or perhaps: [[Wikipedia:Timeline of the Neutral Point of View policy page]] ??
A page about the reasoning behind things might be useful in some cases.
My view of how policy and processes on Wikipedia work is at [[WP:PRO]]. Summary: we need process, but not too much of it.
- d.
On 10/12/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: er if ArbCom could pull it off even if it wanted to)
Thank you for your input here.
I was hoping to clarify ideas. I was hoping that the analogy with deletion process would at least bring into focus where people's particular problems. (OK, I was also hoping to be told I was a genius and had solved this one at a stroke.)
- Wikipedia has an obligation to protect its editors from harassment.
Ummm. No one is even obliged to log in ever again. Will this fly?
If Wikipedia does not protect its editors from harassment, it will lose editors. You could make a wordier formulation that avoids the word "obligation", such as "Because Wikipedia can not function without editors and admins, who are volunteers and have many options when deciding how to spend their free time, Wikipedia should not tolerate or enable harassment and intimidation of editors."
- 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.
Yes. Article space is hardly the main problem here. It's "I think this needs to be brought to the community's attention ...", and coat-racking in debates.
Except that the Attack sites case is ostensibly about links in article space, and there was real and disruptive edit warring over linking to Don Murphy and Michael Moore's official sites on their article pages.
If this case is ever successfully going to be closed, I'd say there needs to be a strong distinction made between article space and other space, and I would like to see the focus shift to intent and effect of links, rather than the url of the specific site.