" 

  
 I applaud your decision on Obama articles but it is not enough. There are other editors not mentioned and some got off too lightly. 

 The mess with Obama hurts Wikipedia. I used to contribute until about a year ago because some Obama people were just too nasty. Suggest a good edit and they jump all over you. Many people not listed have a clear political agenda (only positive things and oppose all neutral or negative things for some; only negative things and oppose all positive things for others). 

 One trouble is that people write something and have a reference. But there is no editorial consideration of what goes in the article. As a result, there is more positive stuff and negative stuff is censored because more people are disciples of Obama than haters. 

 This mess also hurts Wikipedia that I've decided only to read Wikipedia, not add to it. If I see something that is poorly written, I think ""why help?"". There is no appreciation for helping but swift attacks by people who have a political agenda. Then they stalk you in the other articles. 

 The solution to Obama hasn't been reached. ArbCom has taken a long time but just nipped a few people. A real solution would be to have professional reviewers, even English and History teachers to act as referees. This would be done only in exceptional cases, such as the Obama article and only for a limited period, such as 3-4 months. Until then, I don't write for Wikipedia."