[WikiEN-l] Links for Deletion?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

Thinking aloud here. We know that policy on external linking is, well, not in a settled state. 

With a meta-Arbitrator's hat on, I say this: ArbCom can in the "attack sites" case possibly explain something about implementation of existing policy, mainly WP:HARASS. ArbCom doesn't write policy; what it typically does is to explore the amount of "stretch" in existing policy and custom.

Policy is not showing up too well here; turn to "process".

We just have this fragment at the moment: links to ED can be speedily deleted from the site. We are not even very advanced in templating links for "proposed deletion"?

By the article deletion analogy: the following might work, restricted to namespaces other than the article namespace. Have a three tier process:

- speedy deletion, restricted to ED and any sites explicitly put alongside it (so these are the "attack sites"); {{hangon}} only on the grounds that the page is a clearly reliable source and the link is in context.

- proposed deletion by template, to remove junk

- LfD process, to handle contested cases of proposed deletion, and also any mass deletions of links from one "site" (mirrors etc. - what is a site?).

An obvious drawback is that the discussions in the contested cases would attract attention (and might make ArbCom Workshop pages look like a tea party in comparison).

How would the speedy criteria work? Perhaps three-time losers under a mass deletion, plus ArbCom remedies in cases. In other words Slashdot, Slate and so on would usually only come under consideration after a long history.

How could an editor get "banned"? For being too out of process, or persistent recreation of deleted links, editors could be sanctioned.

Charles 


-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam