"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.
1. 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.
3. A flag put on the article talk page pointing to
LfD.
4. Closed by an uninvolved admin after 5 days.
Yes, uninvolved is good.
5. For links judged as "removed" the closing
admin will obfuscate them.
6. 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)
1. Wikipedia has an obligation to protect its editors
from harassment.
Ummm. No one is even obliged to log in ever again. Will this fly?
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.
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:
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.
We already allow this, I believe. It is not a stretch of WP:HARASS that would bother me.
2. Links added to article pages should be considered
under article
content policies.
Fine.
3. 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