User:The Rambling Man/ITN disclaimer

You're here because you don't like the way this nomination is going.

This may help... (or it may make things a lot worse, we'll see....)

Origins

 * You nominated it, you really love the subject, and it hasn't made the main page yet.
 * You nominated it but no-one really cares enough to !vote on it.
 * Someone else nominated it and no-one else really cares enough to !vote on it.
 * Everyone bloody loves it, even the Pope and Arbcom voted for it, but some awkward tool is complaining about the "quality" of the page?
 * it's a crap article, but you consider it "fundamental" or "essential" to add it to the main page or its absence is an embarrassment or a shock or appalling or something equally histrionic.

Standard errors
These are issues which will arise, the first set relate to quality, the second portion relate to ass-hat hick thoughts.
 * Is there a paragraph without an inline citation?
 * Is there a section without an inline citation?
 * Is the article written with POV and OR?
 * Is it an RD which meets some or all of the above criteria?
 * Are you suggesting this should be posted because another article you believe was similar has been posted previously?
 * Does the world really care?
 * Does America care?
 * I nominated it then couldn't be arsed to do anything to improve the piss-poor article, then I complained about it not being posted, and that's everyone's fault but my own, right?
 * Why aren't we publishing happy and good news? Why all this "click-bait"? It's terribly depressing and in no way reflective of reality, is it?

Explanations

 * Don't get too worked up, admins follow the rules, despite what certain Arbs think.
 * Admins shouldn't contravene WP:BLP (which, incredibly, applies to the newly deceased, read it.....)
 * Arbs don't have any greater say than any other editor when it comes to content debate. Don't let them fool you into thinking otherwise.  Some are so out of touch, they can be happily ignored. Arbcom have no jurisdiction at all here in "edit space", even if they and their acolytes think they do.  They can wring their hands and make an almighty fuss but ultimately (and most importantly) their opinion is no more important than your's or mine.
 * No-one cares enough, it probably means it's not ITN-worthy (this isn't a guarantee, but think about it, this is English Wikipedia, not Florida Wikipedia....)

Get outs

 * There are none. We follow consensus and policy. Simple.
 * Some will claim WP:IAR. In which case, all bets are off.

Change
Change is good, like a holiday with a pool and decent cocktails, but until someone with actual balls does more than just the endless whining, we won't have an RFC that allows ITN to contravene some of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and thus publish utter horseshit to the main page. Others prefer just to see "good news". This is also completely unrealistic. Funnily enough I understand, just as most of us do, that posting pertinent RDs and articles is essential to the raison d'être of ITN. Having said that, Wikinews is that way ->. I've had the pleasure of working with a handful of admins at ITN (I won't name names, they know who they are) who actively work to improve things. I've also had the misfortune to engage with many editors who just whinge and whine and do nothing, like small children who believe their only outlet in life is to cry and scream and bash their fists on the ground.

Ahead
File an RFC. I'm certain if the consensus allows us to post under-referenced and crappy articles to the main page without rebuke, we'll all do that. If that's what you want from the world's finest encyclopaedia, I'll ask once, and once only, really?

Conclusion
Insist on quality, that quality is derived from decent sources, not from "oh well, post it quick, it doesn't matter if it's crap".