From: Bryan
Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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. --~~~~