User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired

"Conceal me what I am, and be my aid For such disguise as haply shall become The form of my intent."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
"But again, if truth be told... if you are looking for the guilty, you need only look in the mirror."
If you've come to this page as part of a campaign of personal harassment, I'll not be driven off.
If you've come to this page to make vacuous, immature accusations, bring proof (including diffs), or expect your contributions to my user pages/talk to be deleted immediately.

WP:RECALL

If you are looking at this page, take a moment to weigh in on the proposed policy at WP:RECALL.

Archive 1

Connecticut‎;

Damnit, now I need to find someone else to watch Connecticut‎...Oh well, take your time, come back when you are ready. -Ravedave 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful insinuation

Retract the comment that I am a paid government webspammer.[1]--MONGO 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retract the comment that I am a "POV pushing 9/11 conspiracy theorist". Also, I never said webspammer or paid--where did you get THAT from...? Misinterpretation/rewording of what I wrote. My edit history on these articles (and comments from most people) bear out my fight to NPOV only them. rootology (T) 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where would one get the idea that I am a government POV pusher? You never edited any of these types of articles until after the ED deletion and other areas...now you're all over them, the same articles I have worked on for some time...that definitely appears to be wikistalking and my guess is that information about me being a government POV pusher could only come from nonsense you read at encyclopedia dramatica...an artcle that you fought hard to keep here at Wikipedia...I don't know who you think you're fooling, but it's not me.--MONGO 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I only began really editing Wikipedia a short bit before I found that mess (look at my contribs). 2) I got pulled into that mess somehow, and you've held it against me since for trying to be a logical voice of neutral reason in it. 3) I'll edit anything I want, thanks, or that interests me, and this has NOTHING to do with you. 4) I really have no idea what you're going on about anymore. 5) If you don't STOP IMMEDIATELY with attacking me and accusing me of stalking you, I will take this as a harassment issue and will insist you file ArbCom. You have NOT ONCE providing any requested evidence of this, no matter where I ask you to. Why are you unwilling to show me what you think it is I'm doing wrong? If you won't take this higher and through the proper channels, I will, and I will get your harassment of me stopped. Why won't you let me just build this encyclopedia in peace? rootology (T) 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state I am a government POV pusher as linked above, you show up at articles I have edited for a long time, and this is after the ED nonsense.--MONGO 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found those articles from reading Morton's user page, after he left me comments. Wikipedia is hardly a big place, for "social circles", and I read these articles and saw elements that seemed to be not meeting NPOV, so I began making some edits to them to bring them more in line with policy. My first edit to one of them. I NPOV'd a section name. Then I added constructive info here to expand the encyclopedia. I added a missing reference section. I added missing info with full sourcing to expand and clarify the encyclopedia. I explained my additions. Added more sources. Did clean up. Explained what I was doing. Looking through the vast bulk of my contribs there, that's all I've done. You've been on WP what, like three years? You have how many tens of thousands of edits and how many articles on your watchlist probably? Of course we're going to see each other on our mutual watchlists, especially as some of our interests apparently DO overlap. How is that wikistalking? Again, look at WHEN the bulk of my contribs really begin, when I really began digging into being an editor--around the end of June 2006. Is it unreasonable that the scope of what I edit should expand? Based on WP:STALK if anything you're the one coming after ME, questioning all my good faith edits. Again, either file ArbCom, leave me alone to build the encyclopedia/clean it up in the NPOV fashion that interests me the most, or if you don't leave me alone immediately I will begin assembling all this evidence to properly file an ArbCom against you to get your actions toward me reviewed. rootology (T) 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO

Even if you hadn't discussed anything with him before, once you started clashing, you continued it. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 21st


Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

THis is Karwynn

Don't have time to login, will show up at ArbCOm eventually. 23:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in the towel

I put in the towel about all this. Travb (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page: Let me ask you a favor--your dedication and devotion to an ideal is freaking awesome--but lets try to reign it in a little. I know some of them are working extraordinarily hard to get under others' skins for some reason, but let it slide. If some fool comes along to try to troll you, screw 'em. I'm not even going to reply to them if they try.

Why? Do you think that if I am involved with the page it just makes everyone mad? I am really curious. Please don't be diplomatic--be straightforward and blunt.

I was able to show that a lot of their arguments were completly fallacious. The WP:POINT accusations and the WP:NOR accusations. I was about to tackle the WP:RS with Chomsky, and show the hypocricy of this argument, when the wikiuser who I was debating threw in the towel.

I also was able to show the hypocricy of a wikiuser quoting WP:AGF and WP:Civil when his actions were anything but. I have a feeling that maybe our discussion was so heated that the more moderate people, like yourself, and Sea, dropped out. In otherwords, I alienated my allies. Let me know because I am confused.

The sockpuppet accusation was a grevious error on my part, which I apologized for and did extreme damage contorl, and which I think is no longer causing any damage.

Since throwig in the towel and allowing others to get involved, I have made minor suggestions to the page, but I am stepping back because I am fried and tired of herding cats and the complete refusal of others to admit they are wrong, or apologize for piety name calling.

Really interested in your honest and blunt view. I have a thick skin, and you won't alienate me by being honest. Travb (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall Digest

In case you haven't done so, pop by Wikipedia:German de-adminship solution as well... :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand what you mean, and what is going on. I have seen a lot of editors bailing out this way. This isn't going to be an easy task, but our conscience at least tells us that we have at the very least, tried and given our best. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"MONGO'S IP" subpage you're currently editing

Stop it. Just stop. Suppose someone confirmed that it was his IP, so what? What does it mean? That he has an IP? and doesn't want it publicly veiwed? So what? Just knock it off already--152.163.100.203 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Who is this, that's reviewing my contribs, if I can ask? rootology (T) 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm someone who knows the answer to your question about the IP, but won't answer you anyway. I'm just saying, that even as someone who doesn't like MONGO, not even a little, and as someone with all the evidence in front of me, even the deleted kind, it's just not worth it, so drop it already--205.188.117.6 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just covering bases for everything that could possibly come up in ArbCom, if they take the case. Look at the whole page--I'm laying everything out, no matter how trivial it is, to let my entire record be judged. rootology (T) 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, don't, you feel that if you can prove ownership of the IP you "win". You won't, so drop it--205.188.117.6 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less anyway if it's his or not, to be honest; I know he'll bring it up as an issue during the proceedings that I even defended retention of the "page" that information was on--and that IP info was literally a fraction of the entire content of that page. A page, by the way, which was literally on dozens of pages on Wikipedia. As it was to him such a big deal when this all happened, which is understandable, I'm addressing it now. I'm just not wanting to exclude anything from what I will submit to ArbCom. I seriously feel I have nothing to hide--its not about proving anything with the IP itself. rootology (T) 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, you're wasting a perfectly good, all knowing, anonymous, omnipotent, source, have a nice day--205.188.117.6 22:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, anyway. For what its worth, I appreciate the input, and I already know for a fact that the other party will be bringing this up (hence my explaining my side). If you'd like to communicate directly for any reason, email is enabled. rootology (T) 22:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, no emailing, 1 time only, have a nice day--205.188.117.6 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Guessing you've read that whole page, then. Anything I missed that I should cover? rootology (T) 22:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]