QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 29th January 2011, 10:08pm)
Man, this thread went off-topic pretty durn quick, didn't it?
The main gist of this issue appears to be that
JehochmanÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
made this suggestion, in the midst of a
heated discussion about the behavior of
CarolmooredcÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
:
QUOTE(Jehochman)
We need to resolve the problem, even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the pre-assigned noticeboard categories...
Slimmy then posted a more concrete suggestion:
QUOTE(SlimVirgin)
We have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for articles, but not for users. What might be helpful is the creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors). People could make reports there of users who consistently edit aggressively from only one perspective in contentious areas...
...Not that Slimmy has ever done this herself, naturally! She then created the new noticeboard, sparking the negative reaction from the WP folks - when even
they are rejecting new and unnecessary noticeboards, that's a pretty good sign that there are just too many noticeboards, as Ottava
et al have already pointed out above.
I guess the real question is, if it hadn't been SlimVirgin, and if the person (other than SV) who created the noticeboard had waited a couple of weeks first to let people forget the Carolmooredc incident that precipitated the action, would the gambit have worked? Presumably it would have depended on who created it, how much support that person had, and whether or not that person had a history of "forum-shopping" - but since it's so obvious that there are too many noticeboards in general, it's possible that it would have been rejected no matter who created it.
Looking at the MfD votes, it appears to me that there were three reasons why the majority of respondents voted for delete. I think a few of them don't like SV, a few of them truly think there are too many noticeboards, and a good percentage of them are afraid they or their friends would be among the first ones taken before the board and asked to explain their editing behavior.
RfCs on editor behavior can sometimes be effective at correcting the situation. A big problem with an RfC is how time-consuming and torturous it is to put one together. Also, it can sometimes be hard to get enough uninvolved, supposedly objective editors to participate in it to give it credibility.
A noticeboard, such as this one, might have made it easier and faster to address alleged POV editing. Sometimes such editing is obvious, because an editor will
make their opinions clear on the article talk page.