It may be needlessly trivial, but I think it is important to say there is no such thing as a neutral point of view either. You can reduce your emotional attachment to an idea, but you can't get rid of it entirely. [1] This is a link to a great list of typical errors that lead people to make errors in judgement.

Here is a [2] psychologist's site that explains an old (1960s) three step cognitive model for decision-making. The second step is making an emotional (Belief) connection to the thought. My opinion of these battles is that one side is just unbearably emo. Emotional investment in the emotion is intense. Just imagine having the kind of argument you get during a divorce and you have the idea. That's what keeps the Holocaust deniers coming back time after time.

Wikipedians take the term "open-minded" to absurd length. Accepting demonstrably false stements is a waste of time. What is worse, it damages Wikipedia. A supposed point of view that is either stupid (idea used incorrectly) or ignorant (without a basis) is not a point of view. Thus the header: Ignorance is not a point of view.

So what we have is a situation where the editor is indulging his or her emotions as well as the person who puts forward the whacky falsehood that buoys his delusions. They chase one another around endlessly. Unfortunately this prevents people who have legitimate contributions from risking their own egos. This discourse isn't exactly uncivil, but more like the passive-agressive crap you get from a government clerk about to go on break. OMG a rule! You had better not violate a RULE.

So the whacko gets respect and forbearance, but somebody who goes on about a personal thing (vanity) gets a gang rape du jour and expulsion from the hallowed halls of Wikipedia. Until this sort of thing can be remedied, Orlowski wins. (Please understand that I think Siegenthaler's reaction was retarded.)

Does anybody else think the overuse of acronyms here in Wikipedia smacks of the Scientologists' cant?