Slim ownership of WP:V Options

[papaya]

After a loooong, drawn out compromise session, Blueboar comes up with a new formula to blunt the "not truth" dumb line, so when the discussion dies down and someone moves to close the discussion a few days early, SV seizes the opportunity to turn the whole thing on its head and attempt to force the whole process to start over.

[Detective]

I'm not one to give WP the benefit of the doubt, but there is something to be said in favour of giving all sides of the story, provided it is done in a genuinely unbiased way (a big if, of course). If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers. I leave others to decide how to deal with Ottava and Communicat.

[communicat]

I'm not one to give WP the benefit of the doubt, but there is something to be said in favour of giving all sides of the story, provided it is done in a genuinely unbiased way (a big if, of course). If an editor can find genuinely good sources saying something, even if it is rejected by the great majority of other sources, then it would be wrong for something claiming to be the sum of all human knowledge to ignore that. There should be an acknowledgement that "a few authorities say that the sky is usually green[127][129][133], although this view is strongly deprecated by other sources [128][130]".

If, however, something is only asserted by total crackpots, it should be ignored or shunted off somewhere else, e.g. Flat Earthers. I leave others to decide how to deal with Ottava and Communicat.

No, I've not yet been hit by a drone; but before that happens, allow me to say WP's NPOV rules are lucid and rational, and Detective above has summarised them adequately and concisely. So WP policy as such and in that particular regard is not at fault. It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.

I'm unable to offer advice on how to deal with Ottava, other than to put him on ignore, as I've done. But with regard to Communicat, one way of dealing with Communicat is simply to label him an "obnoxious cunt", as Tarc does, and then go off in a huff without addressing the serious but apparently embarrassing NPOV issues raised by Communicat. Nor is Tarc alone in that approach. Bless 'em all.

This post has been edited by communicat: Fri 4th November 2011, 4:16pm

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It's the "human factor" that's to blame, i.e. blatant failure/refusal to recognise and/or implement policy, to the extent that such failure/refusal becomes effectively the established norm, and hence a kind of unofficial policy in itself.

I think this is correct. Should we hold the ArbCom accountable? In the recent "BLP" case, the ArbCom's official pronouncement was "Gee, it looks like people are breaking the rules. We, the mighty ArbCommers, hereby ask politely that in the future, people ought to try harder to obey the rules."