[WikiEN-l] Links for Deletion?

[Thatcher131 Wikipedia]

It would be interesting to experiment with a process to force
discussion and consensus, rather than allowing single-actor
edit-warring over links.  But if Arbcom can't create policy, can it
create process?

It is also the case that deletion neccessarily require some kind of
process in part because any editor can desire deletion but only admins
can perform it.  Any editor can edit article content including
removing links, and creating a LfD process could really enable
wikilawyering by people who support links that already have broad
support for removal, like personal web sites, myspace, Youtube
copyvios, and so forth.

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)

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).
3. A flag put on the article talk page pointing to LfD.
4. Closed by an uninvolved admin after 5 days.
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.
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.

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.
2. Links added to article pages should be considered under article
content policies.
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.


On 10/12/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>