Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

As there is a lot of information here, I've arranged it all in as close to a true chronilogical fashion as I can. Summary/principle assertations:

1. The inclusion of an attack image on the Wikipedia article by vandals was improper.
2. The ED article on Wikipeida was not an attack article. The article on MONGO on the ED outside website could be seen as that, but the Wikipedia article about ED on this website was just that--an article about the outside website.
3. MONGO I believe violated WP:FULL due to his immediate, and apparently forseen involvement with this article by protecting and editing it (and by protecting the talk page itself).
4. I fought as some as said "like hell" to save the ED article, on the principle that it had a place at the least as a stub.
5. Personal morality, or specific "offensive" aspects of some content on a 3rd party site should have no role in whether it has an article on Wikipedia, as it opens an incredibly slippery slope where an editor (or group of editors') morals and personal beliefs may then extend to removing other content they feel is "inappropriate" or offensive from the encyclopedia, if precedent is set allowing such things.
6. The AFD was closed incorrectly (and closed twice), and the AfD process (as explained below) was apparently rather botched.
7. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) may have been improperly deleted, but I can't see it to tell. I recall it being properly certified, but I can't see now to be sure.
8. Since all this mess ended, and before it, I've worked to improve the encyclopedia in good faith.
9. MONGO has taken an inappropriately hostile/threatening tone with myself, and others.
10. MONGO has accused me of Wikistalking, and no such thing has happened on my part.
11. MONGO has threatened to ban me for removing unproven personal attacks on AN/I.
12. MONGO appears to not want to see me appear in any way on any article he has been previously involved with, or that is possibly related to things he has been involved with or will be.
13. MONGO appears to be saying my involvement in any RfCs/back end things may be in "bad faith", or part of a campaign of harassment/wikistalking, despite the fact that my Outside Views on the ones he has said such things on were generally endorsing the subjects of the RfCs.
14. MONGO apparently blocked a random user with one bad edit, a personal attack, for which he was warned, based on a lack of evidence of violations and a stated "hunch", and protected his talk page so that he could not appeal.
15. MONGO blocked the user's Talk pages immediately after blocking them in violation of WP:FULL, which says, "Users can edit their own User Talk pages, even while blocked. This is in order to allow appeals and discussion about blocks. However, if a user abuses this feature, and continues with vandalism or disruption such as excessive personal attacks on his own User Talk page, the page can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage."
16. All this endless, circuitous onslaught of slander by MONGO and a small group of others towards me and my desire to defend myself--I don't feel I should have to leave baseless trollish attacks unaddressed--has basically poisoned my name now, and they now have their retribution in that form. This has caused me immense stress, and led to me wasting a phenominal amount of time which could have been spent building the encyclopedia, and has made me nearly just leave altogether--and all because I voiced my opinions and tried to stand up for a personal belief that nothing should be judged based on personal bias or personal morality for inclusion in Wikipedia.

(I'm going to make this as completely detailed as I possibly can, for the relevant bits, as so much of this had it's origin here, and so many people seem to be using "ED" as the de facto insult and pejorative label now and basis of my "wikistalking" now.)

I found this mess of a situation after starting to build my first article, Timeline of Internet conflicts. Doing research on WP for this, and outside, I found out about some sort of Internet protest that had to do with something called Habbo Hotel. That made reference to Bantown, which led to an AfD, my first exposure ever to the "back side" of Wikipedia. That led to the the Encylopedia damatica article (now deleted), where I found the already underway mess that was unfolding. The short version: apparently this 3rd party Wikisite made an article that made fun of MONGO, and some troll had changed the long-standing image on the Wikipedia article about the same with a screen shot of the "attack article" about MONGO. There was apparently back and forth talk about this in the days before I even found all this, and MONGO ended up locking the article (and it's talk page), and then post-locking began to edit the article, all in apparent violation of WP:FULL. Anyway, I then (in 20/20 hindsight, wish I hadn't) got involved, and tried to source the article after it was unprotected. Then it got nominated for AfD, and was eventually removed from Wikipedia. Feel free to review the AfD--it was a wild mess with everyone on all sides having tremendously hurt feelings, and WP:AGF was basically left at the door for days prior to the AfD by all participants.

• MONGO discussing plan to get 'rid' of the article--with the person, Netscott, who afterwards filed the AfD nomination.
• WP:FULL: "How" section: "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest."
• This edit here basically sums up the crux of why I was upset at the way in which MONGO led to the unfolding of the ED situation, and it's AfD--and this all appears to be the entire root and genesis of this Arbitration Request.

This was the basis, largely, of what was seen by me in my first foray into this side of Wikipedia (the 'back end') as administrative bias and a major conflict of interest. Nearly all of my imploring on the Article talk and the AfD was basically summarized by, "Judge this article on MERIT, not what the outside did or didn't do toward MONGO", and "MONGO should honestly recuse himself from functioning as an admin in this situation, due to the obvious conflict of interest". Nearly all of the massive fighting on the Article, Talk page of the article, the AfD, the AfD Talk, and the later DRV would have been eliminated had MONGO simply stepped back and let someone else handle this. I think that my frustration during this process was exacerbated by the fact that I did try to "save" this article in stub format based on it's modicum of sources that did meet WP:RS, but the sheer hostility that was flowing in opposition to it overwhelmed me. Coupled with the fact that the actual AfD was actually closed as a keep (no concensus) by one admin, only to be overturned and then later closed 10-12 hours later as a delete by Nandesuka, upset me, as it seemed to be a validation at the time to me that the AfD process in this case--again, my first real exposure to it--was somehow 'rigged' based on the actions of all involved. In hindsight, knowing how everything works, that does not excuse any incivil comments or actions during that short time period of the AfD and it's subsequent appeals/review.

I will readily admit that myself--during the approximate week or so of this mess, was incivil at times, but there has been nothing of the sort like that since. Aside from the ED article, it's AfD, it's DRV, and the RfC (now deleted) about MONGO's actions during the process, I've had little meaningful contact directly with him until his accusations really began in force of my stalking him. I also was not aware of the 'hows' of many of the policies at the time, as can be sign by my general cluelessness then, and was learning as it all unfolded. I feel that nearly all the later fallout of anger from MONGO toward me is a direct result of my trying (and failing at times) to be a rational voice of non-partisan reason during all of this mess, contrary to his stated wishes to see the "ED" article gone from Wikipedia.

For what it is worth, and so you can understand why I "fought" so hard to save the article: it's nothing to do with the content on the outside website--to be honest, I never cared about that. To me, the point of this encyclopedia after reading everything was the creation of an all encompassing encyclopedia. As Jimbo put it somewhere (I think this is the approximate phrase), "the sum total of human knowledge". To me, that is completely outside the realms of personal morality, which is how I saw the AfD in question after I first got involved. Did they have an "attack" page on MONGO? Yes, there was something like that. But on the same note, we maintain articles on Daniel Brandt and Wikitruth. We also maintain articles on all sorts of things that to some people will be seen as vile, objectional, reprehensible, or any number of other things. In summary, I strove to "save" the article in some form because it seemed that the entire basis of the AfD ultimately was due to the fact that it does have sections highly critical of Wikipedians/Wikipedia. To me at the time this was born out by the fact that MONGO would frequently say things during the process like "We don't support that site," "We won't link to that crap," and so on.

I wanted it in not because I was supporting any sorts of attacks, but because it didn't feel right to get rid of an article because the subject of it had a fraction of their content that is seen as abusive by Wikipedia... while other similar articles like Wikitruth weren't touched and are allowed to remain. If the New York Times, Slashdot, or Boing Boing ran a piece that "torched" Wikipedia or revealed info on an administrator here, would we remove direct links to that site from our encyclopedia? Would we de-link the NewYorkTimes.com site? I argued on the principle of all this as I saw it--I've looked through all the diffs I can find and I can't find a single, solitary point in which I said I supported any attacks. It was never once about that.

Basically, my problem initially was that MONGO directly put himself into the conflict. Understandable, but from how the WP:FULL policy reads not right--nearly ALL the original fighting would have gone away instantly had he not thrown lighter fluid on an already burning fire himself. Then, during the AfD, we have it closed, and the people are not happy with the result, so they get it opened again. The front that was presented during the AfD and later was that the article was about a non-notable subject, despite the fact that by the end of the whole AfD we had found enough sources meeting WP:RS to warrant it's retention in some form. This was reflected that it was closed as non-concensus/Keep, but then reclosed again as a Delete. How would another ten hours make such a dramatic shift?

For what it is worth, other admins did agree with the relevant points I was trying (unsuccesfully) to make heard.

ED article timeline ~

What upset me most was the basic timeline of how everything happened as near as I can recall now with no access to the actual article history (admins/arbcom can review this). The edit history on the ED article itself can fill in any holes here, but I cannot see that. Even now that I know more of the policies, in hindsight I see many things of a questionable nature happening. The entire "ED situation", for my participation in it, was from about July 17th/18th, to about the last week of July, with the subsequent DRV. That's really it:

1. ED article on Wikipedia sits apparently and mostly idle, based on it's edit history, for quite some time.
2. 3rd party site, Encyclopedia damatica, puts the MONGO article on their front page.
3. Someone lets MONGO know on his talk page. His first knowledge of this, as far as I know, on July 16th.
4. About the same time some random vandal replaces the screen shot of ED's front page that had been on the article for some time with the "live" version featuring MONGO's article (I never actually saw this version; it was gone by the time I found all this).
5. MONGO deletes the image or gets rid of it somehow--I had no problem with this. His work on the ED article begins sometime around 07:33, 17 July 2006, based on this diff. Around 08:27, July 17, 2006 is when MONGO appears to have also inexplicably protected the article's talk page, freezing everything.
6. First "public" complaint about this by someone, after MONGO protected the page he was involved with and began editing it, at 10:17, July 17, 2006.
7. MONGO's first statement on his thoughts for this that I can find, at 12:02, July 17, 2006. "I don't give a good godamn damn what a bunch of trash do on that website, but they are not going to import their shit into wikipedia, do you now understand?"
8. MONGO protects the article after one person put the image back in, to keep it out--I had no problem with this, but someone else should have gotten it for him as I interpret and read WP:FULL--MONGO was already involved. "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection."
9. MONGO says the protect can be lifted, but I don't recall it was at all yet, at 12:13, July 17, 2006.
10. First sign of how bitter this was going to become. - 12:15, July 17, 2006 "The only way that image will be in the article will be over the dead bodies of many many people here."
11. Now more strident, MONGO announces the extent of what the ED article will be per him, at 14:26, July 17, 2006.
12. MONGO then removes the direct link to the ED site on the article, editing it while protected in what I perceived to be his WP:FULL violation, and I think some of the other links in the article here on Wikipedia, while it's protected.
13. The first warning to MONGO about editing the protected article is civilly posted by another administrator at 15:55, July 17, 2006, and at 23:20, July 17, 2006 is warned by another person that he is overstepping his bounds. MONGO then gets very uncivil with that other admin.
14. I believe this is when I first found this mess. 17:56, July 17, 2006 is the first thing I can find in my contribution history related to this. The first ED article edit from me on the talk page there may be from the night before, late, or that same morning. I'm not sure now if I found the ED article specifically because of the earlier Bantown AfD I had found (my first one ever), or by just looking around the Wikipedia name space for the first time. This is about when I made the mistake of stepping into this picture.
15. At 05:05, July 18, 2006, MONGO and Netscott discuss their plans for the article on Tony Sidaway's talk page.
16. The article stays protected until the ED people put up a new "Article of the Week". At some point after MONGO had been editing the article after protecting it himself, Tony Sidaway unprotected and reprotected, and later, after it went into AfD, William H. Connelly also protected the article at my request to stop an especially rabid edit war. There was additional unneeded drama later when another administrator, Zanieum I believe, began edited the article while it was protected midway through the AfD.
17. The article is unprotected, and MONGO with the editors Hipocrite and Netscott immediately guts the article, within something like 30 minutes. No politer way to put it.
18. Netscott AfDs the article at 14:23, July 18, 2006.

ED AfD timeline ~

The AfD in question.

1. Commence massive AfD "battle". During the five days, the article is completely rewritten repeatedly on Sandbox pages (as it was protected) and discussed on Talk, by scores of editors. By the 3rd/4th day, it's perfectly fine as a stub and a much cleaner, smaller, and sourced/verifiable article, and only one section was really in contention for content (I believe "examples of ED humor" was the section).
2. About 3 days, 9 hours in, an Administrator (Mailer Diablo) closes it as concensus (keep) at 23:34, July 21, 2006 (as the Afd was hopelessly a case of no concensus, and the AfD was based on the original version of the article. Mailer Diablo, a trusted and valued Administrator, raises concerns about the structure and mess that is the AfD here.
3. Mailer Diablo reopens the AfD.
4. About 4 days, 8 hours in, at 22:25, July 22, 2006 Nandesuka closes it as a pure Delete. How would things have gone from no concensus (keep) to Delete when there was almost NO new content or opinions added to the AfD, and the Deleted version was adequetly sourced, and significantly different...? Almost nothing changed on the AfD itself in that time frame.

The extensive DRV is located here.

• My support for this was based on the fact that the AfD was closed as no concensus (keep) by one admin, but as it was closed apparently early, and the other perceived improprieties throughout. The next admin simply closed it as delete. Additionally, Netscott heavily refactored comments from users, several times, and in hindhight I feel inappropriately "hid" comments under the collapsable windows he used/insisted on, on the actual AfD. As one posted there said, describing the wild ways in which the AfD was done in my opinion wrong, and which led to the last gasps of trouble with this:

the points by the "keep" voters were not totally described properly, and that kind of bothers me. It ignores the media attention it has recieve, however scant it may be, it ignores the fact that WP:V is not, in fact, violated by this article, and the points that do could very well be dealt with as they had been prior to the flap, it completely ignores horrid, horrid actions by User:Netscott to hide and move discussions and rationales by established editors, including his nifty little blacklist.

• If the Committee were so inclined, I would ask them to also comment if they feel the AfD and DRV were ran and judged appropriately in this case. I personally feel they were not, but a final decision from all of you as part of any judgement on this will go a long ways towards creating finality for all involved. Additional very useful policy information on the AfD and DRV were on this post, and also addresses MONGO's repeated editing of the actual Deletion Review nomination (which myself and others "called out" about--it was not any sort of abuse, it simply mentioned MONGO):

Per deletion policy: a) "Please do not remove any statements from any deletion discussion," itals from the page. Not only were statements removed from the deletion discussion, but they were removed by the nominating party. b) "In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request." Furthermore, along these lines, "Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations." The hiding and removing of discussion information from the main page violated this. c) At the AfD main page, "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article," which was done or discussed within the debate. At no point does it say that such disclosures be discounted or dismissed or otherwise. It's also fair to note that no one involved with the Wikidrama at the article were asked, required, or apparently volunteered to give such information, either. These are three important parts of the AfD process that were circumvented or outright ignored. If these processes were followed, even I could have likely endorsed the closure, but this was obviously a failure on many levels, and should be treated as such.

The question of the IP address is a red herring. When all this was unfolding, several people decided that an RfC may have been in order based on MONGO's actions. To this end, random lists of his actions--just wikipedia diff links--were collected after one user began this process, to see if an RfC would be something with merit. This entire aspect of all of this was dead and buried the moment Tony deleted the page. Coincidentally, however, the page was allowed to remain by admins in other locations on Wikipedia. I had some participation in the collection of possible evidence in the form of links and diffs, for the assembly of a possible RfC based on MONGO's behavior here, and I recall that the "big page of links" was going to be sorted through to establish patterns of behavior. This was the MfD specifically for this page, which no longer exists. All this information as far I know originated on Wikipedia from this random user, who spammed it. My other relevant posts:

• We know nothing about this IP, and it may be a vandal.
• I made a statement about the technical nature of IPs, which is factually true. All you can glean from a lone IP in this case is that it's owned by Cox, and what it's reverse DNS record (PTR) is. While in some cases IPs can contain sensitive information, this one had none, and no personally identifying information.
• Comment by me, after Tony Sidaway said initially that nothing should be done about the RfC data compilation.
• I make reference to the source of some of the information.
• This was the lone and only comment from me that I can find that advocating releasing any personal information, and probably was not a smart thing.

The entire "IP" issue lasted approximately a few hours, and this is literally all of it and my involvement in it. The information involved, a month plus later, is apparently not a big deal at this time, and may never have been except to certain supporters of MONGO, as it is still even up on an administrator's page as of late August. There were points during the morass of the ED fighting where others had pointed this out, but no action was taken on any copies of this except the one I was involved with, that I know of, for some reason.

MONGO may try to connect me to a variety of banned users ( Hardvice, et al), and all sorts of levels of ED, due to the fact that I've made statements during July along the lines of "ED has an article on x, y, or z," during discussion. In regard to any observations from me about the Encyclopedia damatica site or given articles there, anyone can make any observations there in seconds by doing the same thing we do on Wikipedia: look at their article (whatever it is). Saying this implicates me in some great conspiracy is like saying I am employed by the Wikipedia Foundation because I can tell you how some processes, policies, and Wikipedia work.

To me, it's a dead, buried issue, and I'm onto thinking and worrying about other things, but others seem to be unwilling to simply let things go (many of the parties involved in that AfD and it's wake). My primary concern is the stress, insults, accusations, and threats that are still being lobbed at me for being willing to "oppose", as they seem to see it, of what their concensus was.

Please review my contributions after all of this was a dead issue. I've been trying (hard) in the month-plus since then to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia since, helping on RC/vandalism patrol, trying to "Wikignome" my way around to help out, have worked generally pleasantly with admins on a policy proposal ( WP:RECALL), have created a variety of articles, and have tried to help out on a variety of touchier articles to inject a much more NPOV tone and needed sourcing. I've also taken on a project on my own to "state tag" every community article (like this, but a long, long ways to go, and it's not practically something a bot can do--it's all by hand). Look at the bulk of my contributions, when considering this. My contributions before getting into this, if you review (from about before 7/18/06 or so) had nothing to do with ANY of this.

Please consider the bulk of my contributions (I have nothing or any previous actions that I want to hide):

• My Main space contributions.
• My Main talk contributions.
• My User Talk contributions.
• My Wikipedia space contributions.
• My Wikipedia space talk contributions.
• Complete user log.
• Block log.
• Upload log.
• Move log.

I've worked hard (almost non-stop) since getting deeper into this, to build an encylopedia, have created a variety of articles, and have endevoured to move forward in good faith.

The user Morton devonshire had left a message on my talk page, about an issue involving another user. Morton, on his user page, maintains lists of articles he dislikes, has worked to "eliminate", or that "should be" eliminated. I followed some links around from these parts of his page a little over a week later, which eventually led me to articles like Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Steven E. Jones. The subjects of the articles interested me and I read them, and saw NPOV issues on some, which I endevoured to correct. The fact that the day I found them there was a local connection to me also caught my interest, and led me to begin editing. I didn't bother to look to see if MONGO was involved in these before starting, but I wasn't aware that I should even be concerned with such things (I simply tried to better the articles), or that this administrator was apparently watching out for me and my activities. I stuck around on this small group of articles as they're apparently magnets for "POV pushing" of all stripes--conspiracists, liberals, conservatives, nearly everyone seems to try to stick something in that violates WP:POV either subtley or horrifically; I'm interested in keeping things NPOV. They're also a relative "new" set of articles, and seem to be ones that will be growing in scope, so that interests me now as well, to help build them long-term.

I feel I've done nothing wrong in working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia on these articles, and even had been talking quite pleasantly with one of the " regulars" on the articles, and have been praised for being constructive in improving them.

My work on these articles --

These are basically the extent of the 9/11 articles I work on, that I found via Morton. I've done cosmetic clean up and done things like adding the Biography template onto some others. All of them I have touched are directly related to, forks, or derived from the main "Scholars" article. Virtually all my edits on these are clean-up, rearranging, adding citations, and attempting to NPOV them further (apologies for edit countitis, but I really want to demonstrate that MONGO has little to nothing to do with these articles that I'm supposedly stalking him on):

1. Main Scholars article - Scholars for 9/11 Truth: MONGO has four total edits to the article as of 8/23/06, his first being an AfD nomination of it. Nearly 1/4 of all the edits to this article are by me as of 8/23/06, from my efforts to clean it up with Peephole. I've edited this as of 8/23/06 a total of 64 times, and am one of the main participants on it. MONGO hasn't even touched it in over two months.
2. James H. Fetzer: MONGO has one edit to this article, and I first worked on it fully 2-3 weeks before him, as of 8/23/06.
3. Kevin Barrett: As of 8/23/06, MONGO has never once edited this article, and I have a handful of edits.
4. Robert M. Bowman: As of 8/23/06, MONGO has never once edited this article, and I have a handful of edits.
5. Don Paul: As of 8/23/06, MONGO has never once edited this article, and I have a handful of edits.
6. Morgan Reynolds: As of 8/23/06, MONGO has never once edited this article, and I have a handful of edits.
7. David Ray Griffin: As of 8/23/06, MONGO has one edit on this article, and I have a handful of edits.
8. Daniel Orr: I created this article.
9. Steven E. Jones: MONGO first worked on this in late June, I see now. I first worked on this one on August 12th. Our number of edits is about the same. This is really the only "crossover", if there is any--as of 8/23/06, MONGO has edited it 56 times, myself 34 times.

MONGO's belief (and others') in regards to these articles seems to be some weird application or validation in his mind of ownership of working on these. I've contributed more than he has by a long mile to this very small subset of articles, however. If this is wikistalking, after finding out about these via another user, I'm at a complete loss. I honestly have no idea where his belief that I'm stalking him on these comes from, as he barely has anything to do with them in practice or fact.

Ancillary ~

There is one other article we seem to have "crossover" on, now that I look: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. However, I was working on and editing this article before MONGO per the full edit history, and he then arrived to edit a day after I did, suddenly. Looking through the full talk page archives now (I checked the above articles' talk page histories as well yesterday, but not this one), it appears MONGO commented there before I contributed to the article itself. I did not check to see if MONGO appeared in any edit histories before contributing to the article, however, and still do not believe I have wikistalked anyone, simply based on good faith contributions to articles that interest me.

Rereading all of this, I have the opinion and suspician that nothing less than my reviewing full article histories, whatever I contribute to: main space, talk, user talk, Wikipedia space (afd, rfc, etc.) to ensure MONGO hasn't been "there" before will satisfy him in the end. If he puts everything he edits on his watchlist automatically, will I be required to review the lifetime history of a page before editing in good faith and contributing? If I see an article has been vandalized while looking at recent changes, should I not edit it if MONGO has been there before? I honestly still am at an even greater loss, the more I reread all of this as I collect this information, and feel as if MONGO has basically placed Scarlet Letters on me, that his peers are abiding by, that say "ED".

I'm not sure where allegations of my going into national parks articles came from--I've never even touched such an article that I know of, and the extent of my "park" activities are three articles as of 8/23/06 (two of which I made): Boothe Memorial Park and Museum, Sterling Homestead, and Putnam Memorial State Park. If it's worth noting (I really have nothing to hide), my interest in even these few (non-national parks: two are town level, one is a state park) is the fact that I have been to each numerous times in real life, and all of them are within approximately ten miles of where I grew up. I don't know if Tom Harrison just seeing the word "park" in my recent contributions list on 8/23/06 sparked this out of left field accusation, but I'm at a loss. The closest I could conceivably at this time come is this one lone image, of a lighthouse that sits on local municipal land in my hometown (I retrieved the image from the National Park Service website). I don't think I got any other of my image uploads from the NPS.

Zoe's statement in the Arbitration is an ad hominem attack and fabrication, unfortunately. As seen from my contributions, I clearly had zero contact with MONGO (or knew of) before finding the ED mess. I joined Wikipedia in October 2005. I found that mess in late July 2006, and have had at best sporadic contact directly with him since that was all done with, on my part or my own initiation.

MONGO (deleted)

This RfC was deleted, and was located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC). Unfortunately, I have no access to review anything in there.

Hipocrite

I placed on outside view on this RfC. I had a great many editorial disagreements with Hipocrite, and this user also (before this RfC) utterly torched/flamed me out of the blue on MONGO's now deleted RfC (diffs available to admins). In spite of this, I gave this user a fair, even Outside View after I found out about this RfC, which (as I stated I would on the talk page) I withdrew if certain evidence came to pass--it did--and apologized. Hipocrite on his flaming of me on MONGO's RfC had called for me to be banned. I gave him at best a figurative slap on the wrist in passing, and praised him otherwise. I don't carry grudges or bias, and again, have tried to move past all the previous unpleasantness from last month. I attempted to conduct myself civilly throughout this, despite being attacked repeatedly.

Kelly Martin

I left an Outside View here that basically praised what Kelly did, but not the tone in which she did it. I'm not sure if my eventual participation in an RfC that apparently hundreds of users also participated in is a component of what MONGO considers to be wikistalking (for what it's worth, I was contributing there before he was).

This entire policy proposal had it's genesis in the conversation I had here, largely with Cyde Weys, about how any given policy should/could be proposed (about half of the crux of the recent Kelly Martin RfC). The general tone of many participants at times during the RfC, such as this "LOL" to the idea that adminship was not permanent, that admins were beyond reprimand, also played a role in this. After I posted this question about how policy could or should be formed, I looked around at other (defunct/dead) policy proposals for similar things, and based on the opinions expressed by some users on the RfC, I decided to write up the policy proposal to spark some discussion, and review of the old idea. In fact, numerous admins have participated in the policy work, across different versions. My draft was eventually rejected after several weeks, but the work on the later, derivative versions is still continuing as of 8/22/06.

My attempt to see if such a policy had legs and merit is not a new one; others have done so in the past, and another (proposed by an Administrator) is already being reviewed as of 8/23/06.

Starting around the beginning of August, MONGO began accusing me of directly Wikistalking himself and "other administrators". When I'd often (repeatedly) asked him to explain/show me how I was doing this, he would routinely not give me answers, but tell me to 'knock it off'. I really, really don't want to walk away from the bulk of my contributions, or this name. I want to keep building the project, but MONGO with his appearances to announce that I'm commiting bannable offenses, and ad hominem comments from others (Cyde Weys, Zoe, et al) about my being a simple troll and to paraphrase "owing no allegience" to Wikipedia are upsetting, and in particular having a figurative Sword of Damocles hanging over my head that one of these users will either arbitrarily remove me, or that I'm being especially watched now for some reason for them to remove me for having been a vocal voice in opposition to the previous AfD. This is a timeline, directly related to this, of MONGO's accusations toward me of the bannable offense of Wikistalking. I honestly do not feel I have been wikistalking anyone, in any way, and I feel my contribution histories as detailed above bear this out.

8/1/06 ~

* Implied accusation of stalking/following (apparently the first one), in spite of the fact that I had numerous previous interactions with various users on the RfC--including the subject of the RfC itself. rootology ( T) 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

8/16/06, Kelly Martin RfC ~

I left an Outside View on what was a very highly "known" RfC, and had a fairly pleasant conversation with Kelly on her talk page during the process. I also participated in this before MONGO did, so I don't know how I wikistalked him here.

I made largely the same points that others were also stating. On a couple of instances some tempers did flare, but it was actually directed at me, for apparently asking direct questions that didn't please some of the participants. MONGO here, out of the blue, throws out one of the wikistalking accusations toward me. I'm honestly not sure if he just expects me to stay in the Main name space, away from any subject that might interest him, based on all of this, or if any participation from me on RfCs, RfAs, AfDs, or anything like AN/I going forward is to be perceived as some form of wikistalking simply because he may be there. The other user that MONGO accused here of wikistalking asked him for clarification, to which MONGO did not provide any clear information or guidance, just a curt open ended response.

By simply asserting that wikistalking entails dealings with any "admins you're interested in," that means that by that interpretation any future contact between myself, Tony, Kelly, or anyone else presumably would be a part of some stalking scheme. I honestly don't know what to make of this--am I supposed to NOT ever post in anything under the Wikipedia name space again because MONGO dislikes me? Do I have to leave/cease editing an article if he shows up to contribute? If I happen to read an article, make an adjustment, correction, or addition, and it happens to be on his watchlist (which I can't see obviously), am I now continuing some stalking? I'd point out that of all the (hundreds?) of articles he has on his user page, for all the myriad national parks, I've never contributed to ONE of them. The only mutual crossover we have that I know of in the main name space is that I'm trying to edit/NPOV a small (approximately seven or eight) number of articles related to one aspect of the entire September 11th attacks, and I've edited the George W. Bush article--an obviously very, very well known article--about six times in my life.

Oddly, he later explained that I was also wikistalking other admins (need to find diff), including Tony Sidaway, which is odd as I had/have been working rather civilly and collegially at that point with Tony on a policy proposal at WP:RECALL, along with a variety of other administrators.

8/18/06 ~

This all apparently came to a head for MONGO when he blocked a user that I have known for several years (before joining Wikipedia) via various Information technology and computer science circles, Weevlos. MONGO had blocked the user in what appeared to be "out of the blue" to me. His talk page was also protected by MONGO, so that the user could not request a review of the block on his own. Knowing this person for several years, I had his page on my watchlist, and when I noticed this all I posted in an already ongoing AN/I discussion here, asking why he was blocked. Ever since then, it's been apparently escalated by MONGO towards his "going after me". I began to compile this page after all this.

1. First removal of personal attack by me.
2. First reversion.
3. Second removal by me, clarifying it as such.
4. Second reversion of my removal.
5. Message threatening to ban me for removal of a perceived WP:NPA violation.
6. My post in AN/I asking for clarification from other admins.
7. My first reply on ANI in regards to this.
8. Additional comments/discussion (it gets completely circular--me asking nicely for clarification/diffs, no responses) on this same AN/I topic and subtopics.

8/19 to 8/21 - break ~

Took down my page, intending to take long wikibreak from stress due to all this (and nearly just walked away from this username to start over, simply so MONGO wouldn't know who I was any longer). Decided to just take a couple days off instead, and then immediately was attacked/accused again after doing some good faith edits based on perceived policy.

8/21/06 ~

1. Accuses me of accusing him of being a paid government webspammer, in response to his accusing me of being a " POV pushing 9/11 conspiracy theorist". Attempting to clarify what is being said, and discuss it with MONGO, and trying to defuse this whole confusing mess of my being attacked on the talk page. A regular contributor on this article comes to my defense, as I've done nothing wrong and am being wildly attacked.
2. Another accusation of wikistalking, and apparent basis for his reasoning. My reply, explaining my desire to be left alone to build the encyclopedia in peace. Requested him to either file ArbCom, proove where/how I'm wikistalking, and explaining how I feel it is harassment.
3. Apparent clarification of why he feels it's wikistalking (note that his reasoning is basically fiction, per this evidence). My very long response to all points. Another reason my first edit to one of these "9/11" articles caught my interest, is that the radio station referenced and in question is a local one to where I am, and actually happens to be one that I actively listen to, and I was mildy annoyed that I missed the interview in question that is being referenced.
4. I make a statement on talk page expressing an opinion of something on one of the sources, which Tom Harrison quoted ("that quotation is an opinion" - my statement), and am apparently attacked over my simple statement.

If possible, I might ask the Arbitration Committee to also take a look at the block in question of Weevlos--MONGO, in his statement to the Committee, said "when that editor was using his userspace to post the same information that was spammed to hundreds of admins via email and talkpages, and no evidence can show that Weevlos ever recieved the spam himself via wiki...my guess is that Weevlos is partly responsible for the spamming," in regards to why he blocked Weevlos. However, that same information was posted in many places throughout Wikipedia, even directly on an administrator's own page, as of 8/22/06. Based on this, it sounds like MONGO blocked this user of Weevlos simply based on a lack of evidence and an admitted "hunch". Does the Wikimedia software even have the capability to log and record who did or didn't receive a given email? Wasn't that spamming that MONGO based the blocking on only sent to administrators, based on AN/I conversations from the time? That's why I was so confused by my friend being blocked, why I posted the question at the time on 8/18/06 on AN/I, and why I think this one-person indefinite block was inappropriate. Why did MONGO not also block Freakofnurture for the same? MONGO also immediately protected the user's talk page, I believe going against this part of WP:FULL, so he could not appeal with another admin.

• In regard to any questions of why I have no direct contact with this user on Wikipedia, it's simple: if I can text message someone, or simply "Hi," on something like AIM or email, why should I bother with doing so on Wikipedia? I don't directly communicate on Wikipedia with my wife's account either, nor the three real life friends that I know to edit Wikipedia--I don't even know if they have accounts (I've bugged one of them "IRL" to set one up but he was apathetic about it), and I've never bothered to ask beyond that. I knew Weevlos did because I saw his name pop up one day in passing and I added him to my watchlist. Why would I? We have almost totally different interests on here, and I can simply turn around to ask my wife about something, or I can simply call, email, instant message my friends, or just see them by going to their homes, or out for a beer... Wikipedia to me is not a social club or MySpace. It's an encyclopedia. If I wanted to hang out on a message board, there's plenty out there.

MONGO routinely allows personal bias and beliefs to interfere with his administrative duties, as seen on 8/26/06, even as the Arbritration case was beginning. This is just one further example of how his beliefs apparently are of more value to him than Wikipedia's foundational principles. MONGO is an avowed "anti-conspiracy theorist" based on his many edits. There was a vandalized template *on* the encyclopedia, for a series of articles of one of the major 9/11 related 'conspiracy theorists', Alex Jones. Another administrator, Tom Harrison, and editor Morton Devonshire defaced it (in the edit history). MONGO later edited the article several times, but specifically did not undo the vandalism. A complaint was filed on AN/I, which led to Cyde Weys having to fix the template, and then protect it with the comment, "It's a sad day when a template has to be protected because of ADMINISTRATOR vandalism." The defaced encyclopediac content was transcluded into at least 12+ articles until Cyde corrected their collective vandalism.

Cyde then warns very seriously Tom about defacing the encyclopedia as an administrator. To which MONGO in turn replies (after not having fixed the vandalism himself as he should have, as an administrator): "Hum, not sure what was done that was so "wrong" personally.-- MONGO 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)" Earlier, he got defensive and uncivil when questioned by another editor on the same matter. reply

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. The privateditor name WAS made by me, long ago, but I've never used it since. That image WAS captured by me, but obviously I had no intention of really obfuscating anything, or I would have simply edited off the username from the image. The obvious editing connection between my other user and myself is ridiculously clear by the small number of edits it did. I was in a freenode IRC chat, and someone asked what all the nonsense was about that I was chatting with, and I sent them the image privately when they asked what all this was about. It apparently got back to the ED people, but I have no control over that. Why would I be uploading things that would point a clear light at me if I were doing things like that, AND bring about this Arbitration if that were the case? That's just ridiculous.

(Apologies for the length of this--I wanted to get everything related to this down, with nothing hidden, and thank you for reading it.)

I've worked hard since then to try to build the encyclopedia, and improve it; I feel my contributions and links bear that out. I do tend to be direct when I write things on dicussions at times, but simply because I prefer to not waste other's time--I don't know if my sometimes (what I perceive) as straightforward bluntness is what especially infuriated all these people, or if it was simply because I had the tenacity to question "why" things were happening the way they were for that short period of time. I don't think I did anything wrong, directly, or willingly, and did everything I did to try to 'save' that article in good faith, based on my understanding then of how our policies exist and function. If I had done something wrong, given that I was (and apparently still am to this day) in a fairly severe administrative spotlight, I'm sure someone would have blocked me. I've never been blocked once.

Aside from apparently being severely disliked now (and apparently some of them feel free to ignore WP:NPA) by a select group of individuals due to my opposition to the previous AfD, I have no bad feelings or ill will toward anyone that I know on WP. Three people from that previous fiasco seem to not like me specifically still (MONGO, Hipocrite, and Netscott), and the others apparently now feel free to make passing, sniping attacks (Zoe, Cyde). Tony seems to at least outwardly tolerate me (or is amused by my silly willingness to relentlessly stand up for what I believe in, I don't know), and has been helpful in my questions to him. I do have contact moreso with some of these admins than others--but that's simply because these are the ones I have dealt with in the past, and the ones I "know". All I want at this point is for the constant ED related attacks, and especially the constant accusations, threats, and intimidating tone by MONGO to stop, so that I can be free to just work on the encyclopedia. All the previous nonsense to me is done with and I want nothing to do with it, but certain individuals at this point seem unwilling to leave me alone, and appear to have it in for me. The fact that some of them are administrators is extremely stressful, as I never know when I'm going to find myself now in their crosshairs for some sort of delayed retaliatory action, based on MONGO's tone and accusations.

As I said above, the actions of these few to constantly tag me as (just a sample of things hurled at me ever since I practically first stood up for that article): troll; ED administrator; ED leader; sycophant; admins have publically derided me on AN/I (Cyde, Ryan Freisling); drive by NPAs are apparently alright now; and thats just the tip of the iceberg. MONGO's actions and friends have effectivly poisoned my name, since I had the temerity to simply not agree with them. Even if I walked away from this name today--which I am still extremely tempted to do, simply so MONGO et al will not know who I am anymore--I can never work on the same groups of articles I enjoy and want to work on now, as they'll simply be able to put 2+2=Rootology together, and resume this. I have no idea what I should do anymore because of this.

In order to avoid Rootology+gang's continued instance on following my contributions with the express intent of making my wikipedia experience less enjoyable, I have excersized my right to vanish and switched to a different account name, obviously determinable via checkuser or on private request by Arbiter.

After the Enyclopedia damatica article was deleted, Rootology followed me to other areas of the encyclopedia with the intent to harrass: [2] (Rootology later retracted this "outside" view when it turned out to be the work of an abusive sockpuppeteer vandal.) [3]

As the information has been undeleted, I will first cover the assertions against me, and then any remaining subjects at hand.

In the linked statement above, which was reproduced on the main page of this RfAr, User:Zoe makes the following statement:

I have to agree that rootology and badlydrawnjeff have decided to try to turn Wikipedia into another version of Encyclopedia damatica, and don't have the feel for collegiality and community that is needed for useful members of Wikipedia.

My first experience with any wiki of any kind was actually this very Wiki, Wikipedia. My first edits to Encyclopedia damatica, which is a wiki that requires a login to contribute, was on 6 March, 2005, while my first edit to Wikipedia with a login (I had a few anonymous edits prior to using this login) was 12 February 2005. My edits to Wikipedia were not consistently high until the fall of 2005, as my contributions have shown. Other than my anonymous edits early on (which I'm not familar with in terms of their location at this point), I have never used a sockpuppet, alternate alias, or (knowingly used an) open proxy at any point during my time at either Wiki. I was at one time a SysOp at Encyclopedia damatica, but recently lost those user rights due to inactivity, which had persisted with few exceptions since Winter 2005.

Zoe's first assertion is that I have "decided to try to turn Wikipedia into another version of Encyclopedia damatica". I do not believe this assertion to be true, and I can think of only three instances where this may ever be percieved:

1. My support [4] [5] and editing of the article LJ Drama, a site with loose assocations to Encyclopedia damatica. I'm not aware of any involvement of Zoe regarding these articles, and while I disagree with the AfD results, I have made no overtures outside of a deletion review in terms of bringing this article up, and the user who I had conflict with (who is now indefinitely blocked) is on good terms with me. I certainly made mistakes in my dealings with that person regarding that article, and what matters is that it's in the past with him. The article has not come up since.

1. My pushing forward of a notability guideline proposal for internet memes, WP:MEMES. I originally started it at the Village Pump, and later moved it to my userspace based on the support of the discussion by Zoe, as evidenced in the top comment. She never touched upon it again, and the proposal later failed, but one could make a connection that my former association with a site that attempts to catalog internet memes and my attempt to have Wikipedia better serve the community by cataloging internet memes.

1. My defense of the Encyclopedia damatica article. I will present diffs pertaining to my involvement with ED and my multiple issues with the way the eventual demise of the ED article in the sections below, but nothing in my defense of the article, as the evidence will show, seems to back this assertion.

1. My support of MONGO's second RfC, linked as evidence in the main page. As MONGO violated protection policy, I felt it was a no-brainer.

1. My support of WP:RECALL, because I believe in greater accountability for administrators at Wikipedia.

If Zoe has evidence that I have attempted to turn Wikipedia into Encyclopedia damatica, I have seen no evidence in my contributions to support that.

Zoe's second assertion is the following:

[I] don't have the feel for collegiality and community that is needed for useful members of Wikipedia.

I feel this is false due to a large amount of evidence:

1. My recent failed RfA. I recieved 81 votes of support, and 26 votes of opposition, including three votes from users I was in a separate ArbCom case with, two users who, either during or since the RfAr, have been indefinitely blocked, and two users I later got involved in a mediation case with. A strong, near supermajority of Wikipedia users felt strongly enough about my record at Wikipedia to entrust me with more important tools, and that doesn't occur with those who "don't have the feel for collegiality and community" here.

1. I am aggressive at AfD, perhaps occasionally to a fault. I make no apologies for this, but many, including Zoe, have certainly been turned off by this. Zoe, in particular, has been in a number of recent conflicts with me regarding my stance on articles at AfD. We disagreed at WP:BIO regarding the inclusion of minor league baseball players as a result of an AfD for members of the Kinston Indians (a change that Zoe was not able to make), and we've clashed in other deletion areas, most recently with a swipe she took at me, stating that " Badlydrawnjeff votes to keep everything."

If I lacked what she claimed, I would not have gotten the type of support I recently recieved, and I have yet to see any significant evidence of wide acceptance of such a statement.

Finally, Zoe claimed the following:

They have harrassed MONGO

They being myself and rootology. My first long-term (or even, to my knowledge, short-term) association with MONGO was due to the flap at the Encyclopedia damatica article. User:Rootology's timeline above is an accurate representation of the issue, but my "harrassment" of MONGO likely constitutes the following:

1. After MONGO violated Wikipedia's protection policy twice ( [6] [7], I went to his talk page, first to question his outright deletion of an attack image instead of reverting it to its prior non-attack state [8] (MONGO admits the prior image wasn't a problem [9]). I, in fact, supported his attempts to remove the attack image [10], noting that a tremendous amount of effort had been made at the ED talk page to keep trolling out [11]. My last comment to MONGO's talk page at any point since then was to request he not violate the protection policy [12].

1. Debate at the Encyclopedia damatica talk page. Among the actions I took part in were reverting MONGO's archiving of an ongoing talk page discussion per WP:ARCHIVE [13] , when he called the discussion about his actions " junk." The end of my personal discussions with MONGO at the article occurred when I questioned his citing of policy regarding off-wiki attacks corresponding with the existence of the article [14].

1. My support of MONGO's RfC, and the discussion therein. I first took offense tothe characterizations of MONGO's actions [15] , and later regarding my inaction at doing anything at Encyclopedia damatica when MONGO's page was featured [16]. It is important to note that, to my knowledge, although I was a SysOp, I had no access to changing the front page, and no ability to keep anything deleted against the whims of other SysOps at Encyclopedia damatica. Given my lack of editing at ED, I would not have been able to have the clout to change anything anyway.

This constitutes the extent of my interactions with MONGO. I have not, to my knowledge, had any substantive discussion with him before or after the Encyclopedia damatica conflict. My first edit was 12 February 2005, MONGO's 18 January 2005. It took nearly 18 months for me to have any real contact with him, making it difficult to harass him, and I've made it a point to avoid him since then because of this conflict.

Zoe's arguments, as they stand, hold no water. I fully expect to be exonerated from these assertions, if not more.

User:Cyde Weys made the following statement:

Badlydrawnjeff [is a] member[s] of Encyclopedia damatica first, [a] member[s] of Wikipedia second. It is thus understandable where all of the wikidamatica around here is coming from.

1. As demonstrated above, I was a member of Wikipedia first, Encyclopedia damatica second, in terms of a timeline.

1. I have under 1500 contributions to Encyclopedia damatica. As of 27 August 2006, according to EssJay's edit count tool, 6855 edits. At the time of my RfA, which occurred approximately three weeks prior to the Encyclopedia damatica flap, I had 4858 edits. Among my contributions to the Wikipedia project include one good article, The Reputation, which is currently a WP:FAC featured article candidate, a second good article in the making in Kroger Babb, 35 total non-stub article creations/rewrites, and approximately 275 stub creations or rewrites minimum, plus countless article rescues from WP:PROD and AfD. I have been involved in two mediation cases (one failed, one ongoing), and recently finished a request for arbitration ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake). Meanwhile, at Encyclopedia damatica, I have a grand total of three edits pertaining to Wikipedia editors here, neither of which are all that inflammatory, neither of which have expressed any real opinion on them, and neither of which are part of this arbitration case. [17] [18] [19]

If I'm even partially responsible for "all of the wikidamatica around here," Cyde has not been able to show it. However, Cyde and I have had our recent differences, most notably due to my protest [20] of his unilateral implementation of so-called "stable versions" at Elephant ( User_talk:Cyde/Archive009#Elephant.2Fdevelopment), his original statement to this RfAr ( that Rootology and I are not "troll[s] per se, but they have been known to lure the occasional passerby under their bridge and eat him") [21], his editing of my posts on a third party's user talk [22] [23] (A warning he later hid against the talk page rules and guidelines), and his semi-recent closure of a separate AfD [24]. Cyde doesn't like my idea as to what goes on here, and I'm not a huge fan of how he carries himself. I, however, would not make this sort of assertion about him.

User:Hipocrite requested that ArbCom review the...:

..conduct of Rootology, Badlydrawnjeff and the other listed Encyclopedia damatica partisans.

Hipocrite and I are currently in a mediation situation regarding an unrelated article. Outside of my disagreement of his application and understand of policy, I have no long-standing qualms with him. I encourage the members of the Arbitration Committee to review my contributions and conduct, especially in regards to the subject at hand. While I'm sure my conduct has slipped up from time to time in my interactions and defense of articles, I fully stand behind my record and believe it largely speaks for itself.

In the following sections, I'll map out the different issues that have come up conduct-wise as a result of the situation over the last 5 weeks. Because of the nature of the issue, I do not plan on digging back past the time of the attack image except for possible context, mainly because I'm sure we could dig through everyone's contributions over their long time here and find some problems. Instead, I'd prefer the focus be on the actions surrounding the ED article, and its aftermath.

Wikipedia:Protection policy is an official policy at Wikipedia, intended to be followed when a page is protected. Administrators have the ability to protect pages, and are called to show restraint because, as the policy notes, These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.

It is asserted that MONGO, with later assistance from User:Tony Sidaway, violated this policy. MONGO was actively involved in the situation with the ED article prior to protection [25]. It is agreed by all parties that protection is warranted in the case of blatant trolling or vandalism, and protection policy reflects this: Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism. However, the article in question was never used for vandalism and trolling. Rather, an image was being vandalized and trolled as an attack page, which MONGO deleted numerous times. [26] [27] [28]. While the preference (and correct action) would have been to revert the attack image that was in the article rather than delete it outright (as the prior image had been there with no issues and no attacks for months prior [29]), I do not have any issue with his deletion of an attack image. However, protection of the page was incorrect and against policy, as the page was not used for vandalism and there were a grand total of two objectionable edits before MONGO protected the first time. [30] [31]. Images can be reverted and protected, while protecting an article does not affect the change of an image that is embedded in an article.

MONGO would later violate the protection policy by editing a protected article, one that he protected. [32] After a complaint was lodged at his talk page ( see my final edit at the bottom), Tony Sidaway decided to become the protecting admin [33] with the sole intention to "change the protecting admin." [34] MONGO then edited the article again, removing a general external link that illustrates the site per external linking practices, simply because an article about him was on the main page. [35]

I need to reiterate - no one's saying that trolling or vandalism should be tolerated. If MONGO had kept his actions to the image alone, and not caused a stir at the main article with rushed protection and policy violation, no one would question it.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith is an official policy at Wikipedia, considered a fundamental principle. As stated "in a nutshell," Assume that others are trying to help Wikipedia rather than harm it, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary. Deeper in the policy, editors are no longer expected to assume good faith when, despite the best possible construction we can place upon the actions of another, it is clear that they do not wish to serve the project's goals.

As known prior to the addition of this section, none of the editors involved in the conflict surrounding MONGO and the ED article were involved in the off-wiki attacks on MONGO. At the time of these diffs, prior to the RfAr, no evidence had been demonstrated that editors in conflict with MONGO were involved in off-wiki attacks. Given the contribution history of a number of editors involved, good faith was not assumed, and given the lack of evidence that folks like myself, StC, rootology, et al, "do not wish to serve the project's goals" (regardless of conduct at the ED article) it is clear that good faith should have been assumed in this case until ample evidence appeared otherwise.

None of this is to say that the editors and admins listed here do not have positive contributions to the wiki. It is nothing more than a demonstration of how they handle themselves under the pressure.

1. User:MONGO:
   1. MONGO assumes that support of an external link to the site is support for what the site consists of. [36]
   2. MONGO feels that an editor's, User:iicatsii, sporadic contributions make his observations less valid. [37]
   3. In defining those defending the article, or the outside linking, puts the term "editors" in scare quotes in a semi-attack on those who disagree with him, as an attempt to diminish their contributions. [38]
   4. Makes a sarcastic comment toward rootlogy wanting to be a "[w]ikipedian of the highest magnitude." [39]
   5. Concerning a user with more than 500 edits prior to the ED flap, MONGO declares that User:Karwynn has ulterior motives, stating that "it is clear what [Karwynn's] purpose here at Wikipedia is." [40]
   6. A user who I don't believe ever hd a thing to do with the article in any meaningful way was warned by MONGO for linking to the site, claiming that "[r]everting [MONGO] again will be the same as endorsing their attempts at disruption." [41] When questioned, assumes that anyone linking is "a bunch of trolls" while asking if Oleg is "out of it." [42]
   7. Accuses iicatsii of personal attacks when he questions MONGO's actions. [43] The only questionable comment that I can find that iicatsii made was referring to MONGO's actions as "run[ing] around...like a wet hen." [44]
   8. Assumes that my userpage edit (after not touching it for a month) was "interesting timing." [45] Later thinks that I couldn't be defending his right to defend against the attacks and defending the website (not that I was ever defending the website, it is what it is) at the same time. [46]
   9. Tells User:KillerChihuahua that he believes that "the majority of editors that are fighting to POV push that ED nonsense and to promote that website are trolls." [47] Would later assert that I was apparently a troll because of my association. [48]
   10. Assumes another editor is attempting to "cover up for someone," with no evidence to as much as suggest it. [49]
   11. Assumes bad faith about nearly every editor who had elected to vote keep at the AfD. [50]
   12. Claims, extremely falsely, that "not a single [editor]...that is actively and hostily engaging in attempts to keep the ED article have produced any substantive works of accomplishment as far as wikipedia is concerned." In the same comment, he assumes further bad faith: "their continued insistence that the article be kept means they endorse the trash that is posted there on wikipedians." [51]
   13. Makes some very hostile responses to what appears to be a valid question regarding MONGO's blocks. The assumption that non-admins here would understand the way blocks work here is no better than anything else. [52]
   14. Assumes rootology is wikistalking him and others. [53] [54] [55]Later goes after rootology again for something he didn't actually say, further extending the bad faith actions against him. [56]
   15. Assumes Karwynn is only here to troll, ignoring his/her numerous contributions. [57]
   16. Assumes that my defense of the article is due to my associations, rather than my editing history and AfD history (as one person put it, "badlydrawnjeff votes to keep everything.") [58] Claims my "POV should be obvious," ignoring my history. [59]
   17. At the AfD, "the supports (sic) of the website nothing but trolls for the most part." [60]
2. User:Tony Sidaway
   1. Tony Sidaway twice closes the DRV speedily (diffs below as part of a separate section), citing the article as "trash that has no place on Wikipedia." [61]
   2. Later notes that he believes actual discussion of the deletion of a controversial article "gives comfort to trolls." [62] [63] [64]
   3. Tony and I have known eachother from various clashes and cooperative ventures on WP for a significant amount of time. This doesn't mean that he takes it into effect when he finally becomes aware of my role at ED (one I had not fulfilled in half a year), claiming that it suddenly adds something to his "opinion of, and regard for, your motives in editing Wikipedia," regardless of my past contributions. [65]
   4. Assumes Karwynn and Rootology are both trolls. [66]
3. User:Hipocrite
   1. Hipocrite worked the "malfeasance" argument during the proceedings. [67] [68] [69] [70]
   2. Hipocrite says that keep voters "are not paying attention" during the AfD: [71]
   3. Dismissed Karwynn, claiming that s/he "likes to wikifight" with no evidence. [72]
   4. Further assumes bad faith about my motives. [73]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is an official policy at Wikipedia. As stated "in a nutshell," There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. During, and since, the ED debacle, users associated with the site and users who have chosen to defend the article and question MONGO's actions have been branded as trolls, partisans, and other derogatory terms designed to denigrate their character within the project and diminish their contributions. As simply stated on the policy page, There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. While things can be said in the heat of the moment that are regrettable, they are typically unnecessary.

1. MONGO
   1. Calls Karwynn a troll. [74]
   2. Calls everyone(?) trolls? [75] [76] [77] [78]
   3. Possibly the worst of the bunch: "it's raining Shumuckythecats, Bluaarvarks and spineless moronic trolls from the sky" [79]
   4. Other instances: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]
2. Tony Sidaway
   1. An "oversighted" edit called a troll. [85]
   2. Bored kook? [86]

I also consider User:Cyde's original comment (which he has not officially retracted) an especially inappropriate attack due to the forum and wording. [87]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy is an official policy at Wikipedia, designed to govern, in detail, the process and rationales for deleting an article. In the case of ED, the article was deleted out of process, and the question regarding the process was soundly ignored by the community at large in a deletion review. As policy is considered " more official," it is expected that the policy be followed, especially in controversial situations, to fully achieve the proper result.

1. The ED AfD was the third in less than a year, second in less than 4 months. Wikipedia:Speedy keep guidelines suggest speedy keeping articles when there's evidence that editors are "renominating the article on some regular schedule." At least 5 editors, 4 certainly in good standing, call for a speedy keep. I call for one as a WP:POINT violation, as my belief was (and is) that the nomination was retaliatory in nature, and was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The calls to speedy keep were ignored.
2. The ED AfD was closed early twice. Once by User:Mailer Diablo [88] as "no consensus," but reversed by himself as it was too early. Mailer Diablo notes that the AfD was listed improperly, perhaps to "gain more attention from editors" [89]. Less than 24 hours later, and still one day early, User:Nandesuka closes the AfD as "delete" [90], although no terribly new substantive information was brought about to reverse Mailer Diablo's ruling. [91] According to the guide to closure, which is linked from the deletion policy page as a guide to dealing with article deletion, "After 5 days of discussion...Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article." To find consensus, admins are linked to an article on "rough consensus", where consensus is defined for use. As the ED article was not found to violate any of the non-negotiables, and there was a very large amount of participation, the article should not have been deleted. Instead, the closing admin gave undue weight to the delete "voters" while mischaractizing the arguments of the "keep" voters. [92]

1. The AfD was improperly refactored and inappropriately changed numerous times by User:Netscott, in violation both of deletion policy and the policy/guideline that Netscott cited. [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

1. The deletion review was done improperly. [102] The DRV was initiated by someone later indefinitely blocked. However, at no time did the majority of editors follow the calling of what Deletion Review is described as being: " This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Furthermore, " Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the (action) specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." The process was not followed in numerous ways, and those process issues were ignored, as shown by the arguments at the DRV linked above.

Note: Forgive the ridiculous length of the following discussion and diffs. I respect that the Arbitrators will either reedit this as they chose or inform me on what they feel is in need of trimming. Due to the fact that I am responding to multiple individual arguments, my section is far longer than I would prefer it to be. Thanks.-- MONGO 08:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

An attack article about me was created at the Encyclopedia damatica website (ED for short) in May 2006. I was informed via email from someone I wasn't able to identify that the article existed. I had never heard of ED prior to this. I was later informed via email and on my talkpage that the attack article had been put on the ED mainpage as their "featured article". [103] I removed the comments [104], [105]. After a few more trolling comments by an anon, I semi-protected my talkpage [106]. The alterations I made to trolling comments on my talkpage were reverted by Karwynn ( talk · contribs) [107] with the commentary "You know what's fun about ED articles about Wikipedia users? THey're good at keeping track of personal attacks, like the one I just reverted :-) Happy editing!" Karwynn then edit warred with others over the content on my talkpage [108], [109], [110], [111]. Full discussion here. Karwynn violated 3RR and was reported here.

A png image of the ED current (as of 7/16/06) mainpage attack article about me was then uploaded and placed on the Wikipedia article on ED. Seeing this as a personal attack, I deleted the image each of the four times it was uploaded [112], [113], [114] Convinced that I was not going to be able to avoid the ED article being used as a harassment point, I protected the article on 7/17/06. [115] One day later, I semi-protected the article talkpage [116] after my IP information was added there by a sock or meatpuppet account. Hmmm1111111 ( talk · contribs)

WP:FULL states: "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and, "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." as well as, "Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatantly unsuitable content."

I perceived the addition of the same png image four times as harassment and within the guidelines of WP:VAN. This wasn't a content dispute over silly POV's. The article was being used as an overt and deliberate staging point to harass me. The issue about the external link still linking to the attack article about me was brought to my attention after I protected the page, via email, by someone I wasn't able to identify. While the page was protected by me I added the protected template [117] and deleted the redlined link to the png image I had deleted. [118] I later removed the external link to the ED website while it was protected by Tony Sidaway. [119] I saw the external link as "blatantly unsuitable content" because it was to their mainpage which had the attack article about me posted there. As I stated in my edit summary when I deleted the link [120] "They don't deserve a link even, if that links to a personal attack article on a wikipedian".

Full discussion of the page protection...Tony Sidaway's comment, "It is normal to remove grossly abusive content from Wikipedia articles, whether protected or not." at the end of the discussion thread sums up the way I felt about it from the beginning. Rootology repeatedly failed to understand my right to protect myself from harassment. [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], as did Badlydrawnjeff [126], [127]. Comments by User:NoSeptember on this issue are notable. [128]

After Tony Sidaway lifted the page protection, I made 10 edits [129] to the ED article and in these cases, I was trying to ensure it met our policies and guidelines regarding WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. rootology ( talk · contribs) believed that I was acting in bad faith and reported my actions to AN/I [130]. The ED article is soon nominated for deletion by User:Netscott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia damatica (3rd nomination), and closed by User:Nandesuka. The deleted article is brought to deletion review, [131] and was kept deleted. When the article was nominated for deletion review, the nominator inserted inflammatory commentary about me which had no purpose into the review request, which I removed. Rootology questioned my right to not be harassed several times. [132], [133], [134]

As a side note, before ED was deleted, Karwynn transcluded the article to his userspace where it can still be found, and rootology has now also transclude this deleted article to his userspace

rootology ( talk · contribs) and Karwynn ( talk · contribs) work in concert in an attempt to identify my IP address and I'm not sure what purpose this was to serve. [135], [136], [137], rootology defending an attack page which posted my IP address, [138], [139], [140], [141]. Here, rootology believes the contributions of a blocked editor [142] will lead them to potential evidence that can be used on an Rfc against my actions. In fact, several edit summaries by this editor do lead to a sub page at ED which now has the same spam that was used to harass hundreds of Wikipedia admins via their userpages and email. The edit summaries and wording of the message posted by this indef blocked editor are attempts to identify my IP address. [143], Response to rootology after rootology posted what they thought was my IP, [144], [145]. User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence/data dump to be sorted is a deleted userpage of Karwynn which had what they believed to be IP information about me. Several requests were made by User:Hipocrite that Karwynn remove the IP information from the page, and he failed to do so. [146], [147] Tony Sidaway deleted the subpage, which was the same material that I also deleted (but have just restored for arbcom) that was a subpage that Weevlos ( talk · contribs) has at User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence. Karwynn warned Weevlos here about the information since he had already been warned himself. Karwynn was blocked for trying to determine my IP and contested his block. After I removed the history of the IP contribution to one page this is Karwynn's response As far as User:Weevlos goes, there is no evidence he received the information via wiki, and probably simply cut and pasted, since it was created in one edit, into a subpage after seeing it somewhere else. The same information is what was spammed to dozens of admins via their talkpages and email and was discussed here. Here rootology and SchmuckyTheCat both contested the block I applied to User:Weevlos and that I had also protected Weevlos talkpage. My perception was that due to the few edits of Weevlos, and the nature of the edits, that the account was a meatpuppet of another user. The discussion there at AN/I was looked at by other admins and no one overturned the block. rootology repeatedly claimed that he personally knows Weevlos, but I was not able to find any evidence that the two of them have ever communicated on each others talkpages, and the few times they did communicate about things on Wikipedia, nothing in the tone of their conversation appeared to be based on anything that would indicate a friendship.

ED is or at least has recently become very much akin to wikipediareview and Daniel Brandt's hivemind website. ED now is posting as much personal information about Wikipedia editors as it can locate and encourages others to try and find personal information about people for the purposes of harassment. [148] I have observed comments from SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs), Badlydrawnjeff ( talk · contribs), rootology and even from Karwynn that they agreed that I had the right to remove personal attacks regarding me from Wikipedia articles. What concerns me however, is that at least two of these editors are admitted admins/editors at the ED website, which puts them in a position of being able to remove, or at least try to remove personal attacks on their fellow wikipedians at the ED website. Not once has any of these editors offered to help me or anyone else with this matter, even though some of them have been questioned why they hadn't. [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]

SchmuckyTheCat commented on the opening of this arbcom case [159] that he is "someone who does behind the scenes work for ED". Schmucky started the now deleted Rfc about me based on what he considered evidence that I was incivil. Again, I see him as someone that could do something about the off-wiki harassment, yet has failed to do so, so I felt harassed that he would file an Rfc based on the diffs he had there when he seemingly supports, via nonfeasance, attacks made on me and other Wikipedians elsewhere. Sorry, but off-wiki attacks of such a nature can cost people their jobs and worse in real life and more needs to be done to ensure all Wikipedia editors can remain anonymous and not have to endure a high price simply for contributing to this website in which I get paid nothing. After User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted the Rfc, SchmuckyTheCat responded to him with this comment.

Just as the situation regarding the Afd for the ED article started, Badlydrawnjeff altered his Wikipedia userpage here to indicate that he was a lapsed, inactive administrator at the ED website. I questioned him about it here: [160] To me, this timing seems odd, and there have been many times, as I have also wondered about SchmuckyTheCat, why no effort was made by badlydrawnjeff to use his admin tools at ED and try to at least tone down the wrongful accusations about me that are on that website. Here, Badlydrawnjeff comments that he doesn't have mainpage access to the ED website, but I would imagine he could still have edited the article there about me and numerous other Wikipedia editors if he had chosen to do so.

To rootology [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174]

To Karwynn: [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186]

It has been noted that the Encyclopedia damatica article on Wikipedia was nominated for deletion and was deleted. The deletion was brought up for deletion review and the article was kept deleted. Only a little over a month later, on September 6, the deletion was brought up again for deletion review [187] and was quickly closed by User:Doc glasgow [188]. Badlydrawnjeff reverted the closing [189] and it was again closed by Doc glasgow [190]. Doc glasgow blocked Badlydrawnjeff for one hour. [191]

I received the following e-mail from someone who wishes to remain anonymous in this case. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You may wish to inform the ArbComm that [192] lists badlydrawnjeff as desysoped on Encyclopedia damatica only as of today, which is oddly informative, given that he noted that he wrote he "recently lost those user rights due to inactivity," less than 20 hours after he lost those rights.

I have checked the userlogs at ED, and this is true: [193]. This was not news to me, and I was lead to believe from other ED folk I'm in contact with that this was going to occur a number of days ago. Its actual completion yesterday is something I believed was going to occur earlier. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

After reading Mongo's evidence above, I should probably add that the person who e-mailed me the tip about badlydrawnjeff's permissions on ED is a regular wikipedian who is concerned that if he posted the link himself, it might allow someone at ED to determine his IP through the use of their server logs. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

via e-mail. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The particular piece of evidence I'd like to submit is the origin of the harrasing email message that was mass-spammed to admins a few months ago, and which appears to be a key element in the dispute. The email was sent by Encyclopedia damatica user Samsara (who has recently been banned from ED for being disruptive), and he claims this on my ED talk page here.

First of all, I'm not involved at all in the case, I'm just interested in it. I have made a bit of research in contribution histories, and I have discovered something that is very relevant to this case. I don't want to accuse anyone, I will just point out some facts:

• On July 17, Rootology repeatedly edits the Timeline of Internet conflicts and City of Heroes articles.
• At 19:54 he makes a request for username change.
• At 19:55 he cancels it.
• At 20:05 he blanks his user page and stops editing.
• At 20:17 User:PrivateEditor is created. Which articles does he edit? What a coincidence, Timeline of Internet conflicts and City of Heroes.
• At 23:44 PrivateEditor suddenly disappears.
• At 00:10 Rootology is back, and later he edits Timeline of Internet conflicts again.

It's pretty evident that Rootology and PrivateEditor are the same person. Now, this would be totally insignificant without this Wikipedia screenshot uploaded at ED by User:Fuckface with the clear intent of harassing MONGO. Guess who is the user who took the photo? PrivateEditor! Since Fuckface has access to PrivateEditor's account, the only reasonable explanation is that Fuckface is Rootology.

User:Fuckface is one of the ED users who harassed MONGO and other Wikipedia editors, posting their personal names, addresses, photos on ED. Almost all of his contributions consist of personal attacks and stalking against Wikipedians, including MONGO, Nathanr, Kelly Martin, Netscott, Linuxbeak, Cyde, Phaedriel, Zoe, Tony Sidaway, etc.

When asked if he ever edited Encyclopedia damatica, Rootology said no. The evidence I found says the opposite. Mushroom ( Talk) 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) reply

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence#Badlydrawnjeff and SchmuckyTheCat nonfeasance above, MONGO states:

Badlydrawnjeff and SchmuckyTheCat nonfeasance

ED is or at least has recently become very much akin to wikipediareview and Daniel Brandt's hivemind website. ED now is posting as much personal information about Wikipedia editors as it can locate and encourages others to try and find personal information about people for the purposes of harassment.[87] I have observed comments from SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs), Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs), rootology and even from Karwynn that they agreed that I had the right to remove personal attacks regarding me from Wikipedia articles. What concerns me however, is that at least two of these editors are admitted admins/editors at the ED website, which puts them in a position of being able to remove, or at least try to remove personal attacks on their fellow wikipedians at the ED website. Not once has any of these editors offered to help me or anyone else with this matter, even though some of them have been questioned why they hadn't.[88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]

SchmuckyTheCat commented on the opening of this arbcom case [98] that he is "someone who does behind the scenes work for ED". Schmucky started the now deleted Rfc about me based on what he considered evidence that I was incivil. Again, I see him as someone that could do something about the off-wiki harassment, yet has failed to do so, so I felt harassed that he would file an Rfc based on the diffs he had there when he seemingly supports, via nonfeasance, attacks made on me and other Wikipedians elsewhere. Sorry, but off-wiki attacks of such a nature can cost people their jobs and worse in real life and more needs to be done to ensure all Wikipedia editors can remain anonymous and not have to endure a high price simply for contributing to this website in which I get paid nothing. After User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted the Rfc, SchmuckyTheCat responded to him with this comment.

Just as the situation regarding the Afd for the ED article started, Badlydrawnjeff altered his Wikipedia userpage here to indicate that he was a lapsed, inactive administrator at the ED website. I questioned him about it here:[99] To me, this timing seems odd, and there have been many times, as I have also wondered about SchmuckyTheCat, why no effort was made by badlydrawnjeff to use his admin tools at ED and try to at least tone down the wrongful accusations about me that are on that website. Here, Badlydrawnjeff comments that he doesn't have mainpage access to the ED website, but I would imagine he could still have edited the article there about me and numerous other Wikipedia editors if he had chosen to do so.

The logic here disturbs me greatly. If WP editors are the ones making the off-WP attacks, either in other electronic media or in real life, then I agree that the WP community should hold them responsible, even if they behave themselves in their on-WP activities. Any such identified already or in the course of this RFAr should be addressed severely by Arbcom. But to suggest that people might be responsible at some level for material on other sites which was contributed by third parties is unsupported by existing policy or precedent.

Several aspects of MONGO's response to the attacks have crossed the line into assuming bad faith and blocks outside best editor practice, such as blocking persons you are involved in a disagreement with.

This was one incident which fell out of an unblock-en-l complaint from User:Karwynn : [194] [195] [196] [197]

Indef blocking of User:Stanfordandson for perceived personal attacks on him in the ED deletion review, rather than letting an uninvolved admin do it (also came up on unblock-en-l): User_talk:Stanfordandson#Personal attack

Indef blocking of User:Plis for posting links to ED: User talk:Plis

The degree of provocation explains, but does not justify the excursions from good practice.

This situation would have been significantly less controversial had administrator policy been followed to the letter and uninvolved admins reviewed and administered blocks where appropriate.

User:Badlydrawnjeff was by his own admission and per the evidence above a long-standing member, and sometime sysop, of Encyclopaedia damatica. Per long-standing consensus, endorsed in the St. Cristopher arbitration currently voting as well as in prior cases, editors should exercise restraint in subjects where they have a vested interest. Jeff is a well-known and outspoken inclusionist, but his actions in this case went well beyond his characteristic impassioned and well-reasoned defence of content whose inclusion is disputed by others. Given that the article is now deleted one might have hoped that this would become moot, but this case indicates that he still harbours some resentment for the deletion, despite its subsequent endorsement at WP:DRV. I strongly suggest that Jeff voluntarily withdraw from this dispute, since it centres on events in which he had, at the time, a clear conflict of interest. Just zis Guy you know? 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

MONGO engaged in personal attacks on myself and others during the ED fiasco.

Directly, by name, he called me a "spineless moronic troll". [198] Now, I'm a big boy and I can handle it. If you view my user page you see I actually incorporate insults into the page as humor. From an admin, however, that takes on a whole different context. I'd be just fine with it if MONGO had said "oh hey, I didn't see you had a few years worth of edit history behind you, sorry." But that isn't at all what MONGO did. His response was to be a weasel [199], that somehow the word "and" doesn't include me in a list with a banned troll and the generic insult. Further, the implication that my raising the WP:NPA issue with him was harrassment and that I shouldn't comment on his talk page again seemed to me to be a threat.

I felt insulted, indirectly, by MONGO again, when he asserted that no one defending the ED page from deletion had ever contributed anything worthwhile to Wikipedia. [200] "I consider it conteracting the actions of trolls. None of those...not a single one...that is actively and hostily engaging in attempts to keep the ED article have produced any substantive works of accomplishment as far as wikipedia is concerned." Being called a troll is one thing, but directly saying my contributions are worthless is another. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for three years. If I'm a troll, then why am I still here? And if I'm not a troll, why do I deserve this kind of insult from an administrator?

I felt threatened again by his comments on WP:AN/I: [201] "Everyone of you people are misusing wikipedia to POV push encyclopedia damatica should be permabanned" Again, I'm lumped in with those who wanted to keep the ED article (both good users and bad ones). I'd seen MONGOs ban log and that he wasn't showing much restraint - I felt intimidated by this kind of comment (there were plenty more like this as well) and backed off from involving myself in defending the article that I originally wrote. Wikipedia editors should not be intimidated away from contributing.

Any review of MONGOs contributions on talk pages reveals he is curt and often impolite to many users. This isn't news as even his RfA noted multiple oppose and neutral votes because of it.

Civility is one of the Five Pillars, being right about some admin actions is not.

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.