Are you seriously now suggesting that anything that commenting on the contributor automatically amounts to a personal attack? Ignoring for a moment that that would make it impossible to address someone's bad behavior (which clearly isn't banned), you already gave an example of something which describes someone's behavior that you don't consider a personal attack. This would have to be the very first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that that's either de jure or even de facto policy. Are you kidding me? Do you realize how extremely rare that kind of extreme politically correct diplomacy is employed, even with admins? Even those who filed the RfA against me critcized my behavior on article talk pages. Admins do this on a regular basis and they don't even make the slightest attempt to hide it. If I find a dozen examples of an admin doing in a month, will you remove their admin status or punish them in some way? That seems doubtful as this is something they regularly do and is considered to be ok by most. It's also silly to make such a black and white distinction between behavior and argumentation as they are directly tied together. Someone using hypocritical logic to defend their POV and being a hypocrite are one in the same, making it both argumentative and behaviora. Yeah and there's no accountability for that. If anyone gives an example of an admin doing it, they're just told to get over it. I could find numerous examples of any given admin critcizing behavionr outside of user talk pages, but it would be shrugged off in the same regard. It's a MASSIVE double standard. You said 'in addition to' Wikipedia:Civility. In any case, I already addressed this in a message to David Gerard. The policy is far, far too broad to be enforceable. According to Wikipedia:Civility, you are not allowed to do anything which causes stress or conflict, which are unavoidable on any remotely controversial article and even on many non-controversial articles due to disagreement about how it should be written. By POV pushing and engaing in constant strawman arguments, the parties in my dispute were causing conflict and stress. Of course, they aren't reprimanded for that. Yes, and that's entirely subjective. I consider AlexR's and Axon's constant strawman arguments against me and refusal to read/address parts of my argument extremely disrespectful. I also consider you LYING about me not citing sources where needed in order to get a ban passed on me to be disrespectful. I've had direct criticism of my behavior and been called names in another article too, which were directly responded to by an admin (ambi), but she responded to agree with the personal criticsm, and didn't bother to reprimand the guy in the slightest. That can hardly be qualified as a little slip up. That's entirely inconsistent if they don't even so much as make a comment saying it's wrong. Let's not be fooled into thinking that admins are actually being fair with me. How much evidence do I need to compile against an admin and especially an arbitrator of criticizing someone's behavior outside of user talk pages in order to revoke their status? It's enforced, but it's not possibly to enforce something objectively which is so open to interpretation. ---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------