Instead of using your point of view to identify reputable resources which expressed it or diverged from it, you declared that other points of view were nonsense and attempted to structure articles accordingly.
This is just plain ridiculous, I cited *very extensive* resources on the Bisexuality article from experts, alternative studies and even direct quotes from the Kinsey institute.
I'll note that you didn't provide a single link for that 'cite your sources' nonsense, because there is no place where I should have cited a source where I didn't.
What makes this even crazier is that I had contested content for which the parties involved in my case took forever to cite a source for and even then the best they could come up with was some random magazine publication and a random website, not anything written by a historian or other relevent authority figure. They couldn't even produce a single book written on the stuff related to Bisexuality, what does that tell you?
Rather than familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy about citing sources, you decided that you would judge for yourself whether what a source said was true and based on your own judgement decide whether or not the source could be cited.
I'm extremely familiar with the Wikipedia policy about citing sources and if you're going to make this claim, you better damn well provide examples (NONE were provided in my case). The "cite your sources" thing was in response to just the gender article, for which I had removed/rephrased, not added to like the "finding of fact" incorrectly suggested. The fact that you even added that, knowing the other arbs wouldn't bother to check, shows that you're intent on using any lie possible to make the case against me.
The issue with the gender article had _nothing_ to do with citing sources and I was not even contesting any sources given anyway (they didn't give any since it wasn't relevent). What's really odd is that you seem to have added the part of my case that recognizes that it's the obligation of the person who added something to provide a source, not the remover and yet you deliberately ignored that policy. These are the reasons for my modifications:
1. The sentence was incoherent and meaning was unclear. (No cite necessary) 2. Various POV statements that contributed nothing to the article (Such as calling the change of the usage of 'gender' dissapointing--obviously POV). 3. A factually incorrect statement calling a usage of gender 'incorrect' even though a general consensus had already been reached, with evidence provided by others (e.g. the dictionary) that it's a perfeclty valid usage. No sources contesting the dictionary definition, which is common usage, were provided. 4. Etymology which I removed because it was a) inappropriate for the article as I explained (and you didn't read and b) incorrect (source provided from an etymology website).
In summary, you are inventing claims here that not even the parties of my case made. Worst of all, the RfA for me didn't provide a single example of me supposedly violating the Wikipedia:cite your sources page. Really, what kind of decision is made with ZERO EVIDENCE?
What is much worse, you show absolutely no insight into the issues that were involved, and we can look forward to nothing but more trouble.
Really? On what basis are you making that judgement? What edits have I made that indicated anything like that? The removal of POV content? The mountains of proof I prevented that Kinsey statistics were not valid? You make a lot of accusations with NO evidence.
It comes down to this: Wikipedia is not a forum or platform for advocacy. Many other internet venues exist for that, but Wikipedia is and ought to be a frustrating, even punishing environment if that is what you are here for.
What exactly was I advocating? Please, point to a single example where I was putting POV into an article--oh wait, you can't!--because I never did it. I wasn't even accused of POV pushing, I was accused of perseonal attacks. You should really take a look at yourself when you're the only one making a claim and you can't provide an ounce of evidence for it.
You should tell that to AlexR and Axon who are massive POV pushers. They used some the most absurd logically fallacious arguments to defend their edits and even suggested that calling usage of the term gender to mean sex dissapointing wasn't POV. Someone who can't identify obvious POV like that shouldn't be editing articles.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------