Is this the place to eastablish off-Wiki co-ordination to combat disgusting POVing? I'm thinking of a Wikipedia MeatUp forum or something. Any ideas?

No, we need to meet for one purpose only:

Wikipedia Review: The Musical.

Part 1.
1. "Prologue (If I were an Admin)" Entire Cast
2. "Checkuser, Checkuser make me a match." Jayjg, SlimVirgin duette
3. "Invitation to the Arbitration Ball" The Arbitration Comittee
4. "I Feel Pretty" Poetlister and his sockpuppet opera
5. "Master of the House" Jimbo Wales backed by the WMF
6. "I am the Very Model of a Modern Wikipedian" Jzg
7. "The Lord High Inquisitioner" Durova
8. "They see me Rollin', They Hatin'" Willy-on-Wheels


Etc, etc.

Only if you have a budget, or your client does. I don't do "disgusting POV combat", unless I'm being paid for my time.

We're happy for the Review to serve as an off-wiki communication mechanism between like-minded individuals. We can establish semi-private forums, if desired.

Bear in mind that one person's "disgusting POVing" is another person's "fair and balanced", and that combating editing by partisans by condoning equal but opposite partisanship is no solution. I f the Israel-Palestine situation has taught us anything, that is it.

I've proposed off-wiki mechanisms before, there are simple ways to do it. Two people signing up, which is what I've gotten, including myself, probably isn't quite enough. Three, yes.
The Review can be a great place to canvass people for such activity, but I've proposed meeting lists with some security structure, because off-wiki coodination is the the nightmare of Wikipedia administrators, they are defenseless against it without putting in enormous amounts of time.

What they don't understand is that on-wiki informal "coordination" that violates no policies is just as dangerous. In other words, that they, themselves, just doing what comes naturally, are part of the problem.
The problem isn't partisanship, in fact. The problem is lack of neutral regulation of process, so that we have two cliques, sometimes, battling it out with no moderation or ineffective mediation, unskilled, not understanding how you get people like, say, Palestinians and Israelis, to find common ground. I've worked on that problem for many decades, and it isn't insoluble at all, it is merely insoluble under the default conditions at Wikipedia.

Wikipedia thinks that the solution is to ban "POV-pushers," when a functional solution would be the opposite: encourage them to take their stands, to express them fully, interdict personal attacks but reward reasoned argument with evidence, and reward compromise that does not compromise their basic integrity. Build structure for making article decisions that doesn't depend, once conflict has arisen, on the adhocracy, but on more reliable estimations of informed consensus.

There could be many different possible approaches. Personally, I'd start with something radical: a Wikipedia Assembly, using continuous Asset Voting, basically Delegable Proxy, used to create advice, with estimation of consensus for each "decision." (The Assembly would not, technically, make decisions, it would serve, not as an executive body, but as a judicial one. ArbComm mixed up the executive, decision-making function with a judicial one. Judicial process, necessarily, must be very careful, even tediously so.) The Assembly, using Asset Voting, would *fully represent* the editorial community, every person who cared to vote (i.e., with DP, to name a "proxy.").

(The Assembly might elect an executive body, but that's another story. Parliamentary system.)

If you don't understand Asset Voting, well, tough. I'm not going to explain it again unless someone begs me to do so. I'll mention, though, that it was invented by Lewis Carroll in the 1880s, and that it completely and efficiently solves the problem of proportional representation, and of election methods in general, without relying on party systems, and it bypasses Arrow's Theorem, because it isn't, by the terms of the theorem, an "election method." So much for theory applied with narrow assumptions!

Nice. You could make it into a movie where all the peons come in costume and sing along, like the Rocky Horror Picture Show.