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
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
2. Various POV statements that contributed nothing to the article
(Such as calling the change of the usage of 'gender'
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
issues that were involved, and we can look forward to nothing but
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
Nathan J. Yoder