[WikiEN-l] Links for Deletion?

[Thatcher131 Wikipedia]

On 10/12/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at 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.)
>
>
>
> > 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?
>

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."



> > 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.
>

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.