User:Ironiridis/Opinionations

I've established that I have some opinions about things. I figured I should start laying them out, since other users have done the same. Here comes my bias!

Wikinews

 * I oppose the usage of NPOV as a weapon.
 * Several users claim a violation of NPOV when their point of view is not given complete control of an article or policy. The usage of the tag and various warring on the project pages over what is and is not someone's POV is incredible. Someone need not have a valid argument to start a least a 5 day debate and prevent an article from being cleaned up and published.


 * I oppose ArbCom as a tool for circumventing community consensus.
 * I have seen users which would largely be ignored by the community bring cases to ArbCom simply to force an issue. Where the community would have simply used accepted process and proceedure, ArbCom creates this unavoidable delay, drama, and red tape. Ultimately, when a decision is reached by ArbCom, it is only a temporary measure anyway and the conclusions they reach may well be meaningless in a month. ArbCom should never be used in place of mediation. ArbCom should never be used in place of discussion. It is an absolute last resort, not a toy.


 * I oppose anti-X or pro-X crusades.
 * News articles must be written in a manner which is free from blatent bias. Users which exist solely to "eliminate bias" are biased themselves and don't understand the meaning of NPOV.


 * I support and defend the blocking of disruptive users.
 * Some users feel the need to work out aggression, unhappiness, low self-esteem and other personal problems by disrupting Wikinews. In most cases, this manifests in personal attacks on users with a high visibility on Wikinews. Some users are targetted consistently by these disruptive users.


 * I support the idea that personal attacks constitute site disruption.
 * Personal attacks create a negative atmosphere. At the very least, this makes working on Wikinews unpleasant. At the very worst, it drives away users and prohibits collaboration. From the least severe to the most, personal attacks disrupt usage of the site by making productive and positive edits less frequent. Therefore, personal attacks are site disruption and subject to admin action, specifically blocks.
 * Please note that I don't consider this the general case. Singular or retaliatory personal attacks that are not predicated by a previous pattern do not generally warrant a block. A previous history and predictable pattern of attacks, especially unprovoked attacks, weigh greatly towards administrative action. Otherwise, dispute resolution should be used instead.


 * I agree with Chiacomo regarding WN:3RR.
 * The "three revert rule" has always seemed pointless to me. It is easily circumvented, and you cannot win a war simply by reverting an article enough times. I do not believe a knee-jerk block is needed or even constructive. I believe it should be eliminated unless the reverts constitute vandalism or site disruption.