Vancouverguy wrote:
If it is blatent JoeM-style POV that is the problem, there is really no need for arbitration. However in cases like the "Japanese Pornograpy" article, then arbitration is nessesary since not everyone may think that the article is actually POV.
If we do decide to do this, there should be a "fast track" process that would be more efficient to go by when we are dealing with people like JoeM
Who is JoeM? With 300,000 articles each of us necessarily only works on a small subset of the articles. It's perfectly understandable that we may never have heard of a person raising hell over a completely different topic area.
Ec