> Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good

> Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way" or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins. > Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.