If the other arbitrators don't like what I propose they raise hell and so does the Wikipedia community at large. Just take a look at the Jguk case. What was going on in your case was that you came here to push a point of view, 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. 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. 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. 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.
Fred
On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
You could have added a "finding of fact" like "racist remarks are not appropriate on Wikipedia" and they would have all voted 'support' without checking themselves to see if I made any.