Elian wrote:
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of view."
Of course, that's an ideal. You can never completely leave your personal views aside. But the important is: you can try. People who openly work for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article and let others do the tedious taks of neutralizing it", it's "do your best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do so, leave the article alone". And this policy should be enforced by the community.
I support Elian's idea. And I concur with the conclusions Rebecca made in an earlier posting. I decided myself to leave the English Wikipedia one year ago after getting tired of fighting POV vandals for months. Their names changed but their ways remained the same. I had great hope when the arbitration committee was founded but soon I felt that this committee is not an adequate measure for the problem.
If you reached general agreement about a version then there should be a fast process of barring a new generation of POV pushers from tearing all the success down. It is not reasonable that we should go through the painfully long processes of mediation and arbitration again and again while these new POV pushers have time enough to undo all the progress in an article.
I regard Adam Carr as one of the best editors Wikipedia ever had in the history sector. With the current system you can only hope that new NPOV defenders come and go to fight the POV pushers. The main arguments against a stable version policy appear to be dogmas about what a wiki should be. At last you need to come to a sort of content arbitration or locking selected versions from major edits. If not, I fear that one day the potential NPOV defenders will be used up.
Mirko