This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.200.116.133 (talk) at 06:14, 13 August 2005 (personal attacks deleted -- let's all use principled negotiation according to policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:14, 13 August 2005 by 207.200.116.133 (talk) (personal attacks deleted -- let's all use principled negotiation according to policy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This page deleted because Requests for arbitration are comments about contributors not content which does not comport with policy wikipedia:no personal attacks "comment on content, not on the contributor".
This page is ad hominem/poisoning the well type personal attacks enforcing tyranny of the majority in violation of policy as consensus decision-making through principled negotiation in which "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view which is conduct unbecoming Admins. Is there something about, "Comment on content, not on the contributor that you find difficult to understand? This is not rocket science. Shame on you!
It is not fair that those of the majority point of view should control the content of an article through force of numbers, getting more reverts than the minority side can muster, or failing that, lock the page in a version that looks good from your side's point of view. This is argumentum ad numerum, an appeal to the popularity of a point of view which is logical fallacy and produces an encyclopedia of Obscurantism. Right, boys?