JAY JG said:
From: Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy, I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially sanctioned as when they aren't.
While you have a good point about edit wars, ArbCom is an extremely slow process even now, when it has sped up considerably. Considering that it would first require an attempt at resolution (e.g. RfC, mediation), then would have to be accepted by ArbCom, evidence gathered and presented, voted on, then closed, it's hard to imagine this process could take less than a month.
This would be a month of trying to persuade the culprit to be a good boy. Most of us regard this as A Good Thing. ArbCom isn't there to wag the finger at people for not citing sources--in fact if such a case were ever to be accepted by ArbCom for adjudication I think we could take it as a sign that ArbCom's caseload was far too small. We should be able to sort out our differences without resorting to drastic measures. --~~~~