Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence

Response to Georgewilliamherbert evidence

When the ED article was on Wikipedia and being used as a platform to personally attack me, all information that I can see indicates that Badlydrawnjeff and SchmuckyTheCate were either ED admins or "working behind the scenes" on the ED website. I know of several wikipedians who have gone into the ED website and removed libellous information that is posted there about themselves and some of their other fellow wikipedians. Nonfeaseance, means essentially that you could have done something about it, but didn't. As I stated in my evidence presented, not once did Badlydrawnjeff or SchmuckyTheCat offer to remove libelous content from that website. Now if others who do not have admin tools or have access to behind the scenes workings at the ED website can make the effort to assist each other by trying to remove the personal information that exists on the website, then there is really no excuse that I will accept to substantiate why Badlydrawnjeff and SchmuckyTheCat didn't. If I was in their shoes, I would have edit warred there to protect people here from maliciousness, and when they then took away my sysop privlidges there, I would have said, fine and good riddance to ya.

Karwynn (talk · contribs) was blocked 4 times[1]. The last time by me. Karwynn had reposted comments that I moved off an ill advised Rfc (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite that were posted by SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) [2] who hadn't made a single edit in six months and only had a total of 15 edits. Full comments here:[3]. Karwynn reposted without consensus the same personal attacks I had removed from the Rfc,,,essentially supporting said users personal attacks. As linked above, this was discussed. Katwynn's block was reveiwed by Zoe and Tom Harrison, neither of which unblocked Karwynn.[4], [5], [6] Stanfordandson (talk · contribs) was blocked and the block has been reviewed by User:Kungfuadam, User:JzG and User:Redvers [7] and no one has unblocked him. A look at his block log may indicate that I wasn't the first admin to have to deal with this person[8]..a quick look at some of his userpage edits indicates nothing but trolling [9], [10]. Plis (talk · contribs) made two edits [11], [12] out of four total to articles that were nothing but trolling, then out of the blue added a link to the attack article about me from ED to Standfordandson userpage[13]...the block of Plis was also reviewed...[14] and he remains blocked. I'm not sure what more can be said on the matter.--MONGO 05:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to respond separately, and slightly reformatted your response above to break the ED issue apart into a separate paragraph from the individual cases.

Nonfeasance

Regarding the users and ED and nonfeasance, while I understand your point, asserting that as a matter of enforcable WP policy or acceptable WP administrator enforcement behavior, they should have done so in the "not doing this is neglegence or abuse" is a disturbing claim. Holding them accountable here on WP for any affirmative acts they engage in on other websites, related to serious abuse cases on WP, is one thing (which I agree with). Holding them accountable for not making every effort to help you, or another random WP editor, out on another website/wiki/whatever is stretching WP policy past the breaking point.

It would be nice if they did that. It would be sociable if they did it. Those are reasonable statements

Expecting or demanding that they do it, holding them accountable or blaiming them for not doing it, is not a reasonable statement or expectation, and is something I greatly object to as a matter of WP policy.

We cannot and should not legislate people's best behavior elsewhere, other than how it may directly bear in an affirmative act committed or gross neglegence directly related to on-Wikipedia actions.

Users

Regarding the individual user accounts...

I am not claiming that these accounts should never have been blocked for anything. The specifics of your involvement are troubling.

Karwynn

Regarding Karwynn;

• you had an ongoing disagreement with them
• you assumed bad faith and blocked without warning after they reverted your RFC page comment deletion

The RFC page comment deletion was clear enough that I don't believe any policy issues are involved. However, not everyone knows that once someone's indef banned, their comments can be reverted by all admins.

The issue was whether another admin would have felt it was reasonable to warn them first and give them a chance to behave prior to blocking. Particularly another admin who was not already engaged in a disagreement with them.

Your final response to my requests ( [15] ) indicates that you had completely lost perspective in the matter.

Stanfordandson

The specific incident that you indef-blocked Stanfordandson over was when Plis attacked you on Stanfordandson's user page. Had you checkusered Stanfordandson and Plis and established a sockpuppet link, that would be one thing, but holding Stanfordandson responsible for an attack by an apparent uninvolved third party, while they're already blocked, was bizarre.

That Stanfordandson had previously been trolling to some degree does not excuse them from any requirement of fair administrative treatment in the future. The specific incidents that led to the first block ([16]) should have been reported to ANI and had another admin review and act, given that you were already a party in disputes with him (see Tony's prior four blocks of the account).

Every incident from there until the 27th and the final indef block could have been avoided if you had simply refused to discuss or engage in discussion with them. Part of the point of having admins pass review of incidents off to ANI when they're personally involved is to avoid the admin aggrivate the situation.

After the final indef, you eventually acknowledge that Stanfordandson hadn't even done the thing you indef'ed him for [17] and offer to reduce the indef to a week if he apologizes for the thing you'd 3-day blocked him for several days previously.

That is a clear abuse of power and abusive administrator personal involvement, in my opinion.

You got away with it because Stanfordandson had exhausted community patience, not because your actions there were acceptable admin behavior.

Plis

The Plis block at least makes sense in the above contexts, but again, it would have been far better if you'd warned first and let another admin pick it up by posting to ANI. Every time an admin fails to recuse themselves, user respect for WP administration dies a bit more. Admins should both act and appear to act without conflict of interest.

Summary

Your attitude appears to me to have been that anything you did which was in response to ED-related or spinoff cases was justified due to the ED abuses of you. Community opinion was that the "ED side" was sufficiently much of a Wikipedia problem that people would look the other way, but in continuing to justify the behavior now you are raising policy issues including admin personal involvement, recusal, and asking to expand existing abuse policy in an ex post facto manner to justify what you did. Again, I have to object. You shouldn't have done it in the first place.

If another uninvolved admin had done each of those actions, we never would have been here in an RFAr. Your insistence on being the man in the loop is what brought us here today. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, it is my obligation to ensure that you, I and everyone else here doesn't have to have their Wikipedia experience marginalized by those that would misuse this place for harassment purposes. Every single one of those blocks was reviewed, and not one was overturned. If you can't see that the ED article that attacked me has spilt over into this website, then you are not opening your eyes.--MONGO 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, it's your obligation to not abuse editors. As one of around 1,000 admins, you do not personally have to react to every provocation and abuse. When a provocation or abuse is personal to you, in addition to breaking WP policy, it's a darn good idea to pass off admin response judgements to someone who is not emotionally involved. Just pass it to ANI.

This RFAr would not have been accepted by the arbcom if there were not some feeling that you may have overstepped proper admin behavior. Other admins with equal experience to you have commented that they are concerned with your actions.

Admins bending or breaking rules hurts Wikipedia as much or more than any given incident of vandalism. Vandals get reverted, sooner or later, by another admin or editor. There's no take-back for admin abuse. Georgewilliamherbert 08:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the comments by one arbitrator, that all parties would be looked at? If anyone has been abused here, it is ME. That you fail to see this simple fact is your problem. I have abused no one. Your wikilawyering is getting to be completely pedantic and I think you are here mainly due to past disagreements with me. I cited my evidence above, and you, well, I see nothing but your opinions. I don't think you have examined the evidence presented here at all and definitely believe you are here solely due to our previous disagreements. I have nothing more to say to you.--MONGO 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered a WikiBreak? Georgewilliamherbert 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to JzG evidence

I offer no argument to the facts presented by JzG, except for one point. I do not currently harbour any resentment toward the deletion of the article. My issue regarding the deletion had everything to do with how the article was deleted, and I'd have no further argument if the AfD and DRV were handled in a proper manner. Even with those disagreements, I did not bring the matter to ArbComm as I had considered doing following the deletion review, and only bring it up here as a statement of evidence, some surrounding evidence of which I have yet to present. Whatever one cares to label my association with ED as at the time of the conflict, and perhaps my defense held less water than it would have if I didn't have a prior association, I don't feel my defense was without merit, I do believe the process was ignored for the sake of eliminating an article that some wish didn't exist, and I'd like to think that my actions involving the situation (in terms of following the proper procedures) would speak for themselves. As a named person in this matter, it would be lax of me not to present evidence as to what occurred, and it would be improper of me to deny the facts as I know them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Badlydrawnjeff evidence

• User:Iicatsii may also be an editor at ED. A user by the same name here at Wikipedia, was upgraded to sysop/checkuser on the ED website on August 8, 2006.[18], [19] The ED editor by this name has edited the attack article about me on ED, adding a link to my userpage here at Wikipedia.[20]--MONGO 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to SchmuckyTheCat evidence

• 1. SchmuckyTheCat states that "Directly, by name, he called me a "spineless moronic troll" and links to a comment I made on my usertalk[21] in which I was being tongue in cheek, a pun of sorts on raining cats and dogs, by stating that "it's raining Shumuckythecats, Bluaarvarks and spineless moronic trolls from the sky"...I thought I made this clear when I told him he was not an "and"...[[22]. I can understand why he might have felt slighted, but this over dramatization is typical, especially since I was, of course on my own talkpage.
• 2. As he has now commented that "His response was to be a weasel", supposedly I am a weasel I guess I have to take this to mean...see WP:NPA, Schmucky.
• 3. SchmuckyTheCat posted a few "warnings" to my talkpage for comments I made, and I feel he did this simply as a set up for his planned Rfc against me. He solicited, as one would usually do, from others, to sign on to the Rfc, which was deleted.
• 4. I told SchmuckyTheCat to not post to my talkpage again, since I felt that his warnings were without merit and he was simply trying to show an "effort" to work things out as a set up for the Rfc he had planned.
• 5.My adminship passed, so I have no idea why he links to that, except as further attempts to smear me. I had been asked by multiple admins and others to run for admin for a few months and in reality, I was still reluctant to run. I never asked anyone to nominate me for adminship, though Tony Sidaway did mention the matter to me a couple months before I did.
• 6. Yes, I think those that were fighting hardest to keep an article about a racist, homophobic website that makes efforts to personally identify people and put it in print so that anyone who comes along can use such information for the purposes of harassment, is definitely someone that does not understand what Wikipedia is all about and someone that should be permabanned.
• 7. Every block I made was reviewed and not one was overturned on this matter. So SchmuckyTheCat's comments that he had "seen MONGOs ban log and that he wasn't showing much restraint - I felt intimidated" sounds, well, like dramatics to me. I not once blocked him, or told him directly that I would do so.--MONGO 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I linked to your RfA because most people, when criticized during the RfA experience, issue a few mea culpa and say they've learned from the comment. You were told that you're abrasive. Now that the RfA passed, you seem to take it's passing as vindication that you can continue to be abrasive.

Same with asking for reviews of some of your blocks. Those "reviews" were user pissing matches, not reviews. Instead of engaging in pissing matches and feeling vindicated by the results, why not just avoid that kind of disruption by bringing controversial blocks to the community?

And yeah, you're a weasel about insulting me. You won't own up to it. How difficult is it to acknowledge that what you said was insulting to someone else?

On 3 & 4. Guess what, I'm not out to get you. I'm not trying to set you up. I'm not asking for any sanction against you. I simply want you to recognize and admit that you can be incivil (we all will be at some point) and then we can all move on.

None of this addresses my points about Wikipedia being open about itself. If my questioning of your admin actions brings threats and calls of harassment then Wikipedia isn't open - and that's wrong. SchmuckyTheCat 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to User:RyanFreisling striking my comments but I'm not going to edit war about it. We're adults here right? If MONGO can call me a spineless moronic troll then he can stand up to being called a weasel too. He's a big boy, let's all grow up. SchmuckyTheCat 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you are not going to revert war the striking of an obvious personal attack. As the NPA states, please try to focus on content, not attacking contributors. If you maintain your calm, and act 'grown up' as you say, you can make your point far more effectively. Peace! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great advice when the discussion is about content. This is a discussion about contributors. SchmuckyTheCat 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Point is, you were included in the spineless moronic troll sentence, as an "and"...read the sentence...I was making a pun as I stated above...the pun was done on my own usertalk...you weren't even engaged in the conversation. I think you are digging...but if you want to call me a weasel, that's fine...weasels are some of nature's finest hunters, believe it or not.--MONGO 20:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1, a banned user. 2, me. 3, "spineless moronic troll". One of these things is not like the other and didn't belong in the list.

The other attack on me, which you've never addressed, was calling all my contributions worthless. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the evidence section of an RfA is NOT exempt from WP:NPA. You should be able to make your case grounded in content examples, not by calling other users names. Perhaps that's an important difference between WP and ED. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, why don't you go strike the attacks MONGO made on me if you want to be so helpful in enforcing NPA. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pure logical fallacy. It's not my job (nor anyone else's) to delete all personal attacks, I am only responsible for my behavior regarding the attacks I witness, like yours. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Georgewilliamherbert evidence

When the ED article was on Wikipedia and being used as a platform to personally attack me, all information that I can see indicates that Badlydrawnjeff and SchmuckyTheCate were either ED admins or "working behind the scenes" on the ED website. I know of several wikipedians who have gone into the ED website and removed libellous information that is posted there about themselves and some of their other fellow wikipedians. Nonfeaseance, means essentially that you could have done something about it, but didn't. As I stated in my evidence presented, not once did Badlydrawnjeff or SchmuckyTheCat offer to remove libelous content from that website. Now if others who do not have admin tools or have access to behind the scenes workings at the ED website can make the effort to assist each other by trying to remove the personal information that exists on the website, then there is really no excuse that I will accept to substantiate why Badlydrawnjeff and SchmuckyTheCat didn't. If I was in their shoes, I would have edit warred there to protect people here from maliciousness, and when they then took away my sysop privlidges there, I would have said, fine and good riddance to ya.

Karwynn (talk · contribs) was blocked 4 times[23]. The last time by me. Karwynn had reposted comments that I moved off an ill advised Rfc (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite that were posted by SoftPaleColors (talk · contribs) [24] who hadn't made a single edit in six months and only had a total of 15 edits. Full comments here:[25]. Karwynn reposted without consensus the same personal attacks I had removed from the Rfc,,,essentially supporting said users personal attacks. As linked above, this was discussed. Katwynn's block was reveiwed by Zoe and Tom Harrison, neither of which unblocked Karwynn.[26], [27], [28] Stanfordandson (talk · contribs) was blocked and the block has been reviewed by User:Kungfuadam, User:JzG and User:Redvers [29] and no one has unblocked him. A look at his block log may indicate that I wasn't the first admin to have to deal with this person[30]..a quick look at some of his userpage edits indicates nothing but trolling [31], [32]. Plis (talk · contribs) made two edits [33], [34] out of four total to articles that were nothing but trolling, then out of the blue added a link to the attack article about me from ED to Standfordandson userpage[35]...the block of Plis was also reviewed...[36] and he remains blocked. I'm not sure what more can be said on the matter.--MONGO 05:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to respond separately, and slightly reformatted your response above to break the ED issue apart into a separate paragraph from the individual cases.

Nonfeasance

Regarding the users and ED and nonfeasance, while I understand your point, asserting that as a matter of enforcable WP policy or acceptable WP administrator enforcement behavior, they should have done so in the "not doing this is neglegence or abuse" is a disturbing claim. Holding them accountable here on WP for any affirmative acts they engage in on other websites, related to serious abuse cases on WP, is one thing (which I agree with). Holding them accountable for not making every effort to help you, or another random WP editor, out on another website/wiki/whatever is stretching WP policy past the breaking point.

It would be nice if they did that. It would be sociable if they did it. Those are reasonable statements

Expecting or demanding that they do it, holding them accountable or blaiming them for not doing it, is not a reasonable statement or expectation, and is something I greatly object to as a matter of WP policy.

We cannot and should not legislate people's best behavior elsewhere, other than how it may directly bear in an affirmative act committed or gross neglegence directly related to on-Wikipedia actions.

Users

Regarding the individual user accounts...

I am not claiming that these accounts should never have been blocked for anything. The specifics of your involvement are troubling.

Karwynn

Regarding Karwynn;

• you had an ongoing disagreement with them
• you assumed bad faith and blocked without warning after they reverted your RFC page comment deletion

The RFC page comment deletion was clear enough that I don't believe any policy issues are involved. However, not everyone knows that once someone's indef banned, their comments can be reverted by all admins.

The issue was whether another admin would have felt it was reasonable to warn them first and give them a chance to behave prior to blocking. Particularly another admin who was not already engaged in a disagreement with them.

Your final response to my requests ( [37] ) indicates that you had completely lost perspective in the matter.

Stanfordandson

The specific incident that you indef-blocked Stanfordandson over was when Plis attacked you on Stanfordandson's user page. Had you checkusered Stanfordandson and Plis and established a sockpuppet link, that would be one thing, but holding Stanfordandson responsible for an attack by an apparent uninvolved third party, while they're already blocked, was bizarre.

That Stanfordandson had previously been trolling to some degree does not excuse them from any requirement of fair administrative treatment in the future. The specific incidents that led to the first block ([38]) should have been reported to ANI and had another admin review and act, given that you were already a party in disputes with him (see Tony's prior four blocks of the account).

Every incident from there until the 27th and the final indef block could have been avoided if you had simply refused to discuss or engage in discussion with them. Part of the point of having admins pass review of incidents off to ANI when they're personally involved is to avoid the admin aggrivate the situation.

After the final indef, you eventually acknowledge that Stanfordandson hadn't even done the thing you indef'ed him for [39] and offer to reduce the indef to a week if he apologizes for the thing you'd 3-day blocked him for several days previously.

That is a clear abuse of power and abusive administrator personal involvement, in my opinion.

You got away with it because Stanfordandson had exhausted community patience, not because your actions there were acceptable admin behavior.

Plis

The Plis block at least makes sense in the above contexts, but again, it would have been far better if you'd warned first and let another admin pick it up by posting to ANI. Every time an admin fails to recuse themselves, user respect for WP administration dies a bit more. Admins should both act and appear to act without conflict of interest.

Summary

Your attitude appears to me to have been that anything you did which was in response to ED-related or spinoff cases was justified due to the ED abuses of you. Community opinion was that the "ED side" was sufficiently much of a Wikipedia problem that people would look the other way, but in continuing to justify the behavior now you are raising policy issues including admin personal involvement, recusal, and asking to expand existing abuse policy in an ex post facto manner to justify what you did. Again, I have to object. You shouldn't have done it in the first place.

If another uninvolved admin had done each of those actions, we never would have been here in an RFAr. Your insistence on being the man in the loop is what brought us here today. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, it is my obligation to ensure that you, I and everyone else here doesn't have to have their Wikipedia experience marginalized by those that would misuse this place for harassment purposes. Every single one of those blocks was reviewed, and not one was overturned. If you can't see that the ED article that attacked me has spilt over into this website, then you are not opening your eyes.--MONGO 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, it's your obligation to not abuse editors. As one of around 1,000 admins, you do not personally have to react to every provocation and abuse. When a provocation or abuse is personal to you, in addition to breaking WP policy, it's a darn good idea to pass off admin response judgements to someone who is not emotionally involved. Just pass it to ANI.

This RFAr would not have been accepted by the arbcom if there were not some feeling that you may have overstepped proper admin behavior. Other admins with equal experience to you have commented that they are concerned with your actions.

Admins bending or breaking rules hurts Wikipedia as much or more than any given incident of vandalism. Vandals get reverted, sooner or later, by another admin or editor. There's no take-back for admin abuse. Georgewilliamherbert 08:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the comments by one arbitrator, that all parties would be looked at? If anyone has been abused here, it is ME. That you fail to see this simple fact is your problem. I have abused no one. Your wikilawyering is getting to be completely pedantic and I think you are here mainly due to past disagreements with me. I cited my evidence above, and you, well, I see nothing but your opinions. I don't think you have examined the evidence presented here at all and definitely believe you are here solely due to our previous disagreements. I have nothing more to say to you.--MONGO 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered a WikiBreak? Georgewilliamherbert 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to JzG evidence

I offer no argument to the facts presented by JzG, except for one point. I do not currently harbour any resentment toward the deletion of the article. My issue regarding the deletion had everything to do with how the article was deleted, and I'd have no further argument if the AfD and DRV were handled in a proper manner. Even with those disagreements, I did not bring the matter to ArbComm as I had considered doing following the deletion review, and only bring it up here as a statement of evidence, some surrounding evidence of which I have yet to present. Whatever one cares to label my association with ED as at the time of the conflict, and perhaps my defense held less water than it would have if I didn't have a prior association, I don't feel my defense was without merit, I do believe the process was ignored for the sake of eliminating an article that some wish didn't exist, and I'd like to think that my actions involving the situation (in terms of following the proper procedures) would speak for themselves. As a named person in this matter, it would be lax of me not to present evidence as to what occurred, and it would be improper of me to deny the facts as I know them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Badlydrawnjeff evidence

• User:Iicatsii may also be an editor at ED. A user by the same name here at Wikipedia, was upgraded to sysop/checkuser on the ED website on August 8, 2006.[40], [41] The ED editor by this name has edited the attack article about me on ED, adding a link to my userpage here at Wikipedia.[42]--MONGO 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to SchmuckyTheCat evidence

• 1. SchmuckyTheCat states that "Directly, by name, he called me a "spineless moronic troll" and links to a comment I made on my usertalk[43] in which I was being tongue in cheek, a pun of sorts on raining cats and dogs, by stating that "it's raining Shumuckythecats, Bluaarvarks and spineless moronic trolls from the sky"...I thought I made this clear when I told him he was not an "and"...[[44]. I can understand why he might have felt slighted, but this over dramatization is typical, especially since I was, of course on my own talkpage.
• 2. As he has now commented that "His response was to be a weasel", supposedly I am a weasel I guess I have to take this to mean...see WP:NPA, Schmucky.
• 3. SchmuckyTheCat posted a few "warnings" to my talkpage for comments I made, and I feel he did this simply as a set up for his planned Rfc against me. He solicited, as one would usually do, from others, to sign on to the Rfc, which was deleted.
• 4. I told SchmuckyTheCat to not post to my talkpage again, since I felt that his warnings were without merit and he was simply trying to show an "effort" to work things out as a set up for the Rfc he had planned.
• 5.My adminship passed, so I have no idea why he links to that, except as further attempts to smear me. I had been asked by multiple admins and others to run for admin for a few months and in reality, I was still reluctant to run. I never asked anyone to nominate me for adminship, though Tony Sidaway did mention the matter to me a couple months before I did.
• 6. Yes, I think those that were fighting hardest to keep an article about a racist, homophobic website that makes efforts to personally identify people and put it in print so that anyone who comes along can use such information for the purposes of harassment, is definitely someone that does not understand what Wikipedia is all about and someone that should be permabanned.
• 7. Every block I made was reviewed and not one was overturned on this matter. So SchmuckyTheCat's comments that he had "seen MONGOs ban log and that he wasn't showing much restraint - I felt intimidated" sounds, well, like dramatics to me. I not once blocked him, or told him directly that I would do so.--MONGO 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I linked to your RfA because most people, when criticized during the RfA experience, issue a few mea culpa and say they've learned from the comment. You were told that you're abrasive. Now that the RfA passed, you seem to take it's passing as vindication that you can continue to be abrasive.

Same with asking for reviews of some of your blocks. Those "reviews" were user pissing matches, not reviews. Instead of engaging in pissing matches and feeling vindicated by the results, why not just avoid that kind of disruption by bringing controversial blocks to the community?

And yeah, you're a weasel about insulting me. You won't own up to it. How difficult is it to acknowledge that what you said was insulting to someone else?

On 3 & 4. Guess what, I'm not out to get you. I'm not trying to set you up. I'm not asking for any sanction against you. I simply want you to recognize and admit that you can be incivil (we all will be at some point) and then we can all move on.

None of this addresses my points about Wikipedia being open about itself. If my questioning of your admin actions brings threats and calls of harassment then Wikipedia isn't open - and that's wrong. SchmuckyTheCat 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to User:RyanFreisling striking my comments but I'm not going to edit war about it. We're adults here right? If MONGO can call me a spineless moronic troll then he can stand up to being called a weasel too. He's a big boy, let's all grow up. SchmuckyTheCat 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you are not going to revert war the striking of an obvious personal attack. As the NPA states, please try to focus on content, not attacking contributors. If you maintain your calm, and act 'grown up' as you say, you can make your point far more effectively. Peace! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great advice when the discussion is about content. This is a discussion about contributors. SchmuckyTheCat 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Point is, you were included in the spineless moronic troll sentence, as an "and"...read the sentence...I was making a pun as I stated above...the pun was done on my own usertalk...you weren't even engaged in the conversation. I think you are digging...but if you want to call me a weasel, that's fine...weasels are some of nature's finest hunters, believe it or not.--MONGO 20:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1, a banned user. 2, me. 3, "spineless moronic troll". One of these things is not like the other and didn't belong in the list.

The other attack on me, which you've never addressed, was calling all my contributions worthless. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the evidence section of an RfA is NOT exempt from WP:NPA. You should be able to make your case grounded in content examples, not by calling other users names. Perhaps that's an important difference between WP and ED. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, why don't you go strike the attacks MONGO made on me if you want to be so helpful in enforcing NPA. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pure logical fallacy. It's not my job (nor anyone else's) to delete all personal attacks, I am only responsible for my behavior regarding the attacks I witness, like yours. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)