Sean Barrett wrote:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the
formation of a
committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to
ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I don't think that's what we are discussing.
There are dedicated POV warriors who know how to stay within our
behavior rules, and they camp out on articles to make sure they continue
to say the same POV things. This is a bannable offense, as well it
should be. But it is quite difficult for the ArbCom to assess by
themselves. Usually we have been able to deal with this by focussing
strictly on behavioral issues (3 revert rule, for example, or the fact
that many POV warriors have other personality problems that give us
other reasons to ban them).
Slim Virgin very astutely identified this problem a few months back:
there are people who can write in a pseudo-NPOV way about complete
nonsense, and when other editors -- who are not experts in the area --
are asked to come and help, they have a very hard time sorting out what
is going on.
I see no problem with empowering the ArbCom in such cases to call on
some outside opinions to help understand the facts of the case.
--Jimbo