>For this particular conflict, it would help if someone could be found
who
>knows and even holds the Palestinian POV
*but* understands NPOV and why
>it's good - to show those who hold that POV how to do things properly
here.
We had one. He basically left in frustration
over POV warriors and
Wikipedia's failure to deal with them. There's one more, but he isn't
very active in this area right now.
How ... annoying.
The trouble with trying to make rules from extreme cases is that they'll
become a bludgeon for idiots to wield in other places. Look how hard the
idiots wield rules like 3RR - trying to treat it as a floor rather than a
ceiling.
True, "hard cases make bad law."
Can we think of rules that will ameliorate the effects
of stupidity in
these contentious areas, but be light on the unintended side effects
elsewhere? It's a huge wiki. And, of course, rules that are likely to
actually be accepted by the volunteers. Every proposal will drive away
someone.
I think swift but light justice helps. The way things work now, a rogue
editor runs rampant over Wikipedia for a couple of months, till ArbCom can
finally deal with it. By that point their "rap sheet" is so long that the
only reasonable remedy is a lengthy ban of many months. If we were able to
hand out one or two day "cooling off" bans very soon after the behaviour
started, I believe it would make the rogue editors start taking Wikipedia
policies seriously enough that they might actually move their disputes and
concerns to the Talk: pages, rather than the articles. I understand that
temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but,
ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down before
any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.
Jay.