"

please stop threatening. you're throwing weight around in a way that mixes your admin power with that of a user, elevating your ""opinion"" above that of others. you have no right to do so. do you think you're better than me? if so, you're wrong. please stop addressing me as a child because you're an admin, when i freely, unilaterally removed the entire expose of OWB as a plagiarist. was it relevant to the article and important to post temporarily? it absolutely was, because he was attempting to use his external ""article"" to gain POV power, and he has been about as disruptive to the article as anybody could be. that he still claims he didn't claim a ""single sentence"" of the article as his own work shows quite clearly what you're dealing with. however, because he's not an overt vandal, his hand is held indefinitely. enough.

have you considered the damage done by treating two different people as equally at fault in a given situation? i have noticed this before from you directly, katefan, and i'd appreciate it very much if you would at least examine it (once more, if you have already). the result is the discouragement of wikipedia's biggest asset: editors who leave material that will last. i am not your inferior, so please don't treat me as such. if you want to spend hours creating and encouraging editors who bring us things such as this (with a dedication page, no less), then IMO you're misguided. in any case i doubt quite strongly that you realize the effect of blasting into a situation, announcing (however subtly) you're an admin, and then acting as though you're just there to edit. that is not how it works. whether you realize it, your introductions are often launched to establish passive-aggressive superiority. i'll say it again: you are not my superior. you have admin power here, and are not a better editor than i am. please halt with the admin intimidation for issues that, if intervention were to be helpful, require the intervention of somebody who at least acts sincerely as an equal, not a parent. why is that so difficult for admins to understand? i know why, but maybe you can give it a think.

if you doubt the subtle influence of your position as an admin, look no further than OWB's obsequiousness on your talk page. users know what the score is. i'm not going to play, and i've demonstrated repeatedly that my article editing here at wikipedia is in the top layer. i'm quite aware that many don't agree with my philosophy of human action and wikipedia's future (i.e., that encouraging disrupters and discouraging producers is a vacant policy), but i'm going to push it as far as it will go. it my theory begins by refusing to allow vandalistic interference in my comments, that's not necessarily something you couldn't support, katefan, you know. good editors could use the support of admins  far from the ""blitz onto the scene"" method where habitual disrupters and habitually superior editors are then treated as equal entities, with ""fresh start"" mantras (no, it's not the first time i've seen that from you, katefan) and an ""everybody's contributing equally"" approach that does nothing but swat the hands of editors who've fought, sometimes alone and for days, to preserve article integrity. doesn't work with children, nor with adults you're treating as children. the presumption of theoretical equality of action when arriving ""on the scene"" is probably the biggest mistake admins make here.

yes, my objection to your ""fresh start"" approach on the B&C; discussion page is quite serious. i don't believe that you should continue further in the facade of being an objective, normal editor on the page. you have set yourself up as everybody's superior, and such an approach was not necessary. why not let things sort themselves out a bit? did you notice i bowed out (after removing hundreds of my words)? did you notice that things were slowly improving without you? did you notice that somebody else wouldn't bow out? did you notice that i didn't immediately gut his atrocious frank hamer article (as would have been well within the bounds of wikipedia policy)? if not, why are you even pretending to help? there are healthier methods of dispute resolution than dispute denial. they may not seem as touchy-feely at first, but the results are longer lasting and ultimately far more respectful. OWB needed to face what he faced there, and wikipedia, and OWB, will be better off if this process isn't pretended away. you said something about ""i don't know what went on with you two"". really? all that went on was utterly public. i've had no private comm with OWB. so if you don't know what went on, then you didn't pay attention. if you're not paying attention, maybe you might consider stepping back and not jangling your admin keys so readily.

i doubt what i've written here will make any difference, but i figu