Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence

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/w/index.php?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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Rangerdude

Summary

User:Willmcw has engaged in extensive wiki-stalking and personal harassment against me (Rangerdude) and other editors who disagree with his political POV for disruptive purposes. Willmcw has further engaged in heavy POV-pushing and has made multiple disruptive retaliatory attacks on Rangerdude, who has reported him previously for policy violations. According to Willmcw's own admission, he began following my edits after I first discovered wikipedia as an IP user back in December 2004 and has continued doing so up until the present since I formally registered in January 2005. He justifies this decision to wikistalk me based upon his allegation that I supposedly push a "pro/neo-confederate POV." This allegation is largely based by his own admission on a highly POV anon IP edit located here to the William Quantrill article on December 25, 2004. Willmcw incorrectly concluded that I was the author of this edit even though I am not and have never used that IP. He made this assumption before I even registered and has held it up until this arbitration proceeding when he finally conceded I was not the author. As a result of this and other similar bad faith actions against me by Willmcw, he has never extended an assumption of good faith as required by WP:FAITH to my edits since the very first day I registered here.

The result has been a prolonged wikistalking campaign by him against my edits that at times has bordered on persecution. An unfortunate side effect of this bad faith assumption by him has been growing hostility between the two of us in which both parties have regretfully breached civility at times. The instigating event was, however, and remains Willmcw's unfounded bad faith assumptions toward me since the moment I arrived.

User:SlimVirgin has engaged in extreme personal belligerency towards Rangerdude and other editors, has made repeated personal attacks on Rangerdude, has attempted to exclude Rangerdude from participating in wikipedia editing discussions where she is a disputant, and has engaged in coordinated disruptive actions with Willmcw aimed at harassing Rangerdude (Note: SlimVirgin has been cautioned by the ArbCom previously for engaging in personal attacks [2]). SlimVirgin has also repeatedly abused her administrator powers to page protect favored versions on articles in which she is an active participant in a dispute, thus violating WP:PPol: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing" (emphasis original). When documentation of SlimVirgin's Page Protection violations were included in this RfAr, SlimVirgin also attempted to unilaterally change Wikipedia's Page Protection Policy in ways that would give her violations of it greater cover.

Wikistalking

• Dates: December 2004 to Present

Summary: Willmcw has been intensively wiki-stalking my edits on a near-daily basis to at least 43 different articles since December 2004. He began doing so shortly after we first encountered each other on a content dispute at the neo-confederate article, which he guards vigorously from edits other than his own. He began doing so by his own admission in late December 2004 following a good faith edit I made to the Morris Dees article as an anon IP. This edit, located here, improved the accuracy and writing of a paragraph on this article, removed several unsourced POV claims, and corrected typos in the text. Though it exhibits no violation of WP:NPOV, Willmcw - who is politically supportive of Dees - nevertheless objected to it on POV grounds and thus began stalking my edits.

A few days later another anon IP editor (User:64.216.155.74) made a single one-time edit to the William Quantrill article located here. This edit was highly POV and in many ways inflamatory. Upon seeing this edit, Willmcw assumed without evidence that 64.216.155.74 was me. This was false as I did not author that edit and have never used that IP address. As he admits in his version of events below, he became "very concerned" [3] with the Quantrill edit and began following my edits intensely as a result. In Willmcw's own words, "Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits."[4]

I registered on Wikipedia around January 8th or 9th and began my edits as a registered user then. A few days later I was making edits on neo-confederate, which was on Willmcw's watch list and alerted him there. Our first dispute - a relatively mild and productive one - broke out on the talk page over the next few days, but unbeknownst to me Willmcw was already assuming bad faith of me as he believed me to have authored 64.216.155.74's POV changes to the Quantrill article. He accordingly treated me as if I were 64.216.155.74, and has thought of me ever since as a "pro/neo-confederate POV pusher" - an inflamatory and pejorative characterization that he has made of me. Since I am not and never was 64.216.155.74 and at least two of the other anon IP's he's also incorrectly associated with me, his entire basis for stalking me has been made upon bad faith and has continued up until the present in that same bad faith.

Claremont Institute Stalking Case Willmcw stalked me to the article Claremont Institute on February 14th and has continuously harassed my edits there ever since. This case is notable as it shows that Willmcw's intent in stalking was clearly for harassment and disruption, thus conclusively demonstrating that it was the prohibited type of wikistalking per the Arbcom precedents and WP:HA. The vast majority of Willmcw's activities after he followed me to Claremont Institute were harassing and disruptive in nature. His main "contribution" to this article was a prolonged attempt to insert the POV pejorative term "neoconfederate" as an adjective describing the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LVMI) - a libertarian Austrian Economics think tank he dislikes. This charge was based entirely upon a left wing partisan political attack by the Southern Poverty Law Center and had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the Claremont Institute article. When I objected to Willmcw's use of this pejorative in accordance with WP:NPOV, he launched a revert war that lasted for over three months (July to October 2005). His edits here are documented with diffs below at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Use_of_attack_term_.22neoconfederate.22. A summary of these edits is as follows:

• Willmcw added or reverted to the attack term "neoconfederate" as a description of LVMI 12 times
• Willmcw deleted the word "leftist" to describe liberal groups as POV while simultaneously retaining "neoconfederate" 3 times.
• Willmcw added the word "right wing" or reverted to it in place of the more NPOV word "conservative" as a description of David Horowitz 3 times

Willmcw has also engaged in general disruption of my additions to this article including (1) deleting properly sourced material he disagreed wit from the properly designated "criticisms" section, and (2) [deleting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claremont_Institute&diff=18030141&oldid=18029923] details about the Claremont Institute's disputes with Judge Robert Bork so as to emphasize their dispute with LVMI alone, which he then labelled "neoconfederate." Given the nature of Willmcw's behavior on Claremont Institute, his primary purpose in editing it was clearly to create disruptions and harass my efforts to expand the article.

Other Stalking Cases His followup edits are a mix of major changes, many of them disruptive, to minor nit-picking, tit-for-tat changes, and unnecessary word rearrangements that are done for the purposes of frustration, intimidation, and general annoyance. The ArbCom has previously defined Wikistalking as "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" and has blocked users who have engaged in this behavior. [5] Wikistalking is also considered a form of harassment under WP:HA and Jimbo Wales has also blocked [6] a stalker for making followup edits consisted of "minor changes--normally grammatical adjustments or wikilinking existing words and phrases" that were nevertheless aimed at annoying another editor [7] - a description that applies to many of Willmcw's minor followup edits. In many cases Willmcw's stalking of me has been for the explicit purpose of causing annoyance and distress to me.

The Arbcom has also previously found that "It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith" under WP:FAITH and that "constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy" under the civility mandate.[8] Willmcw's stalking has almost always happened on articles where I was making good faith edits to improve and expand the encyclopedia. In each and every case listed below, Willmcw arrived at the article via my user contributions page anywhere from a few minutes to a few days after I had edited it. He then made followup edits of various sorts including both minor things like wikilinking and major attempts at disrupting or undoing my additions. In each and every case the only reason Willmcw edited the article is the fact that he had seen my previous edit of it.

Cases:

1. 02:18, 11 February 2005 - Willmcw stalked me to Olbers' paradox to cause annoyance with word rearrangements of my edits
2. 06:56, 6 February 2005, Revision as of 06:03, 9 February 2005 - stalked me to James M. McPherson to make major changes to my edits, remove content I added, and challenge "sources" of content I added even though it was properly linked below in the article.
3. 22:00, 14 February 2005 - stalked me to Walker Tariff for minor changes
4. 05:38, 13 February 2005 - stalked me to Thomas DiLorenzo, removed 2 links to DiLorenzo's articles - possibly for POV reasons
5. [22:16, 14 February 2005] - I created the Thomas Krannawitter stub at 19:33, he stalked me to it moments later to change the stub classification.
6. 22:20, 14 February 2005 - Same thing as Krannawitter article for Clyde N. Wilson
7. 22:21, 14 February 2005 - stalked me to The Real Lincoln after I created it, similar to Krannawitter. Possible POV pushing - Willmcw's followup was to add it to the "controversial books" category.
8. 12:19, 15 February 2005 - after seeing I added material to Black Codes Willmcw attempted in this post to recruit another editor there to challenge my work. When that editor didn't bite he stalked me there himself for minor tit-for-tat edits [9]
9. 02:30, 16 February 2005 - stalked me to Negrophobia and began deconstructing and rearranging my edits.[10]
10. 10:18, 25 May 2005 - stalked me to Taney Arrest Warrant. One of the sources on this article was to a usenet post, which isn't very strong under WP citation standars. I found a better source with the same info and replaced the usenet post with it. Then Willmcw stalked me there and restored the old usenet post link.
11. 02:07, 22 March 2005 - stalked me to Essie Mae Washington-Williams for followup edits and rearrangement of the text I had added.
12. 02:42, 19 June 2005 - stalked me to the WEDGE Group stub I created.
13. 21:37, 23 June 2005 - stalked me to Justice at the Gate to recategorize it shortly after I created it.
14. 22:51, 21 June 2005 - I responded to an RfC for CAIR by making a suggestion based on how I had solved another editing dispute on neo-confederate that was similar to the one they were having here. (Willmcw had been involved in that dispute, but I did not mention him at all in my suggestion [11]). Willmcw stalked me there later that day and made a post attempting to refight the issues at neo-confederate.
15. 05:42, 30 September 2005 - stalked me to Ronnie Earle for followup edits. Also POV-pushing - Willmcw's edit was to change the title of the main section I had developed from a neutral wording to "criticisms." (Note: another editor immediately saw what Willmcw was trying to do and reverted him [12])
16. 03:02, 5 July 2005 - I created the John Baylor stub, he stalked me to it a few hours later.
17. 23:40, 4 July 2005 - Another editor made a factual mistake describing a historical event in this article. I corrected the mistake [13] and posted documentation on the talk page [14]. Willmcw stalked me here one hour later and reverted to the erronious version without explanation[15] because I was the one who made the change - a clear case of disruption.
18. 23:35, 4 July 2005 - An anon IP added duplicate trivia info on the Abraham Lincoln article, which I do maintanence edits on from time to time. I made a routine deletion that noted it was duplicate [16] but Willmcw stalked me here a few hours later to restore it simply because I was the one who deleted it.
19. 18:50, 2 July 2005 - Another editor created a duplicate article at De Bow's Review on the same subject as the existing DeBow's Review article. I redirected the duplicate to the existing version on July 1st to fix the problem. Willmcw stalked me to it on July 2nd and began to add paragraphs from the duplicate article that I had not merged because they were unsourced, factually erronious, or contained POV speculation about "irony."
20. 22:14, 14 February 2005 - stalked me to Claremont Institute shortly after I started it. Note: Willmcw has continued to stalk my edits on this article over several months as I have expanded it. Many of his stalker edits have aimed to delete large amounts of sourced content I've added [17], addition of pejorative POV terminology to characterize conservative sources he dislikes [18][19][20], removing sources he dislikes and/or intentionally belittling them with descriptions such as "blogger" (see [21] - in this case he described a source as a "blogger" even though it was an article published in print in 2001, many years before blogging came into the mainstream), and near constant revert-warring over virtually every change or addition that's been made [22]. This includes gaming the system under 3RR to make a 4th revert just outside of the 1 day period (see [23], made a day after [24], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claremont_Institute&oldid=18027221, [25]), and repeatedly breaking compromise versions to insert unrelated POV attacks by the Southern Poverty Law Center on conservative sources that are cited in this article (Example: Myself and another editor decided to remove the unrelated SPLC stuff entirely [26] [27] on July 5th, which effectively put an end to revert warring over the previous few days on this. Willmcw simply waited a month and then added it back again [28] on September 3rd).
21. 04:06, 27 May 2005 - stalks me to Texans for True Mobility hours after I created it.
22. 01:26, 29 June 2005 - stalks me to Rick Perry a few days after I edited it.
23. 00:11, 2 July 2005 - stalks me to Ken Masugi after I created it.
24. 23:22, 20 September 2005 - stalked me to Donald Livingston after I created it.
25. [29] - stalked me to Southern Partisan after I did a NPOV overhaul of the article and expanded it. Willmcw's subsequent edits contained extensive POV pushing to disparage the article's subject and promote political groups that he agrees with, extensive revert warring followed Willmcw's arrival.
26. 01:30, 15 August 2005 stalked me to Benjamin Tucker article.
27. 20:15, 14 June 2005 - stalked me to Robert Jensen stub hours after I created it.
28. 00:30, 16 February 2005 - stalked me to Origins of the American Civil War on the same day he followed me to the James McPherson article as described above. This was one of the first articles I made significant edits to upon joining wikipedia. Willmcw had never shown an interest in it prior to encountering me, and suddenly began editing it extensively after he started stalking me.
29. 20:52, 5 July 2005 - stalked me to Arizona Territory (CSA) moments after I expanded its content [30].

In his RfAr complaint against me, Willmcw also complains that I assembled a list of the diffs for his wikistalking of me at User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking in explicit preparation for this case. He lists this complaint under the charge "harassment of editors" [31]. This allegation by Willmcw is highly hypocritical though as he has used his talk and user pages repeatedly in the past to assemble stalker lists of myseld and other editors he habitually follows. Included are lists of every single article I ever edited up until that time (proving that he is indeed stalking me) and lists of hundreds of obscure diffs going back to some of my very first IP edits after I originally discovered wikipedia a year ago. In fact, Willmcw regularly uses his userpage sandbox to assemble lengthy lists of edits made by other editors and articles they have contributed to. That he would complain about me for keeping a single diff list of the cases where he has stalked me is accordingly the height of hypocrisy. Examples:

• 07:45, 15 June 2005 - Posted a tracking list of every article I ever edited to his user pages
• 00:50, 5 February 2005; - Posted a tracking list of every article User:Herschelkrustofsky ever edited
• 05:45, 31 October 2005 - Another list of diffs from stalking me
• 05:46, 31 October 2005 - list of diffs
• 05:48, 31 October 2005 - list of diffs
• 05:51, 31 October 2005 - list of diffs
• 05:54, 31 October 2005 - list of diffs
• [32] - Another list of my diffs.

POV Pushing - Ku Klux Klan and white supremacist insinuations

One of Willmcw's favorite POV-pushing tactics is to make false insinuations and associations between conservative figures and organizations he dislikes and white supremacist movements. He frequently adds text to articles about conservatives and paragraphs criticizing liberals that insinuate the article's subject or mainstream sources he dislikes are somehow affiliated with racism. Examples include adding quotations from notorious Ku Klux Klan activist David Duke, links to white supremacist newspapers, and links to Holocaust denial organizations into article texts. He also frequently adds the term "neoconfederate" - a pejorative word with white supremacist connotations - into descriptions of conservative political groups or figures he dislikes. He frequently justifies the addition of this attack phrase with links to partisan political websites on the left wing. Given the nature of these insinuations and the infamy and violence associated with figures such as Duke and the KKK, Willmcw's edits under this category are highly offensive and inflamatory in addition to being POV.

David Duke incident

• 20:38, 22 July 2005
  • [33] - POV-pushing - adds quotations from notorious KKK activist David Duke to an article about a libertarian think tank he personally dislikes, seeking to discredit it with Duke's well known infamy. It should also be noted that Willmcw essentially admits his purpose of the Duke quote was disruption to prove a point - "I put in David Duke's criticism of the Center to prove that point...Point made, problem solved."

Other uses of White Supremacist and Anti-Semite material

• 08:17, 26 December 2004 - This was Willmcw's first followup edit to my additions on wikipedia. In it he attributed criticisms of Morris Dees to the Jubilee Newspaper - a Christian Identity movement publication with white supremacist and anti-semitic affiliations. In reality the criticisms of Dees came from a Pulitzer Prize finalist article in the Montgomery Advertisor, a well respected mainstream newspaper. Much like the Duke quotes, Willmcw appears to have added this reference to a fringe publication in order to discredit the more legitimate story in the Montgomery Advertisor.
• 03:25, 23 July 2005 - added references and links to the Institute for Historical Review, a holocaust denial group, to smear the Ludwig von Mises Institute with guilt-by-association attacks through Joseph Sobran.
• 21:12, 26 November 2005 - restores the Jubilee Newspaper guilt-by-association reference in the Morris Dees article after I deleted it noting its inappropriateness as a white supremacist source. (Note: Willmcw restored this source even though the link to its website is now dead and the website defunct.)
• 09:45, 18 August 2005 - A suspected sockpuppet user I've never met before posted racist material on my user talk page on August 18th. Willmcw followed it up with by posting a personal attack there, insinuating the racist poster was an associate of mine - "Gee Rangerdude, your pals are real nice folks. "I have a serious stake in keeping things orthodox, straight-laced to the dignity of the United States". Yeah right."
• 02:50, 28 November 2005 - Restores the white supremacist "Jubilee Newspaper" again amidst mainstream critics of Morris Dees.
• 07:34, 1 December 2005 - When I posted objections to using the Jubilee Newspaper as a source on Morris Dees on the grounds that it is a hate site, Willmcw responded "According to whom is the Jubilee a hate site?" and "says who?" (Note: the Jubilee Newspaper's website is filled with anti-semitic and white supremacist statements such as "Jews...are of the synagogue of Satan" and "Jews...are definitely not God's covenant people"[34])

Use of attack term "neoconfederate"

The following list contains instances when Willmcw inserted the word "neoconfederate" as a pejorative descriptor of a conservative organization or figure. He also frequently revert wars to retain this term as a description when it is objected to on NPOV grounds. In some cases, such as the Claremont Institute article, he strenuously advocated and revert warred to keep "neoconfederate" in front of a conservative group while simultaneously trying to exclude the descriptive term "leftist" from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal group he actively promotes.

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]

Examples of Willmcw removing the word "leftist" on POV grounds while simultaneously retaining the "neoconfederate" attack

• [51]
• [52]
• [53]

Examples of Willmcw adding the word "right wing" to describe conservative figures while simultaneously objecting to the use "leftist" for liberals he supports

• [54] - adds "right wing" to David Horowitz
• [55] - reverts to "right wing" after I changed it to "conservative" for NPOV
• [56] - reverts to "right wing" again after I changed it to "conservative" for NPOV

Inconsistent use of the word "controversial" to attack conservatives in the opening article sentence [57] - POV-pushing, adds the word "controversial" in a context that functions as a scareword to a libertarian scholar he dislikes (placement in the opening sentence). Note - he has removed this exact same scareword from the opening sentence a liberal organization he likes on the grounds that it was an "epithet," indicating a selective POV-driven inconsistency in the appropriateness term's use based entirely upon whether the subject is conservative or liberal [58][59].

Inconsistent use of attack terms

• 19:08, 2 October 2005 - POV-pushing - Willmcw removes word "leftist" as a description of a liberal group he agrees with politically, calling it POV. A day later he inserts the word "neo-confederate" as a description to disparage a conservative group he dislikes politically.[60]

Other disruptions of Claremont Institute article 07:32, 1 December 2005 - Willmcw deletes factual descriptions of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in response to an earlier edit where I removed off-topic nested criticisms of LVMI (i.e. critics of critics).

Bad Faith Assumptions

• [61] - According to Willmcw's comments below, he began following my edits on wikipedia before I even registered in early January due in large part to this anon IP edit on the William Quantrill article. He claims below that I authored this extremely POV anon edit. I did no such thing, and did not author this edit nor did I ever use its IP address. But according to Willmcw's comments below he's treated me as if I did author it since the moment I signed up on Wikipedia in January, and he's been following me around wikipedia where he's "more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits" [62] because of it. This case of mistaken identity appears to be the source of this long and complex dispute, and was a breach of WP:FAITH by Willmcw as he incorrectly assumed me to have been its author and thus assumed bad faith about all of my edits from there on out. Also note - Willmcw has incorrectly linked me to at least two other anon IP addresses, 216.84.6.22 and 68.88.14.14 [63], and assumed I was responsible for their edits. Having made these mistaken identifications before I registered my username, Willmcw immediately assumed bad faith of me when he first encountered me after registration and therefore began stalking my edits on false grounds.

Disruption of Houston Chronicle Mediation

• 22:49, 14 June 2005
  • Willmcw unilaterally added himself to a closed mediation between Rangerdude and Katefan0 on Houston Chronicle.[64] Willmcw had been asked to participate in a separate open section of this mediation, but was not authorized to participate in the closed section per an explicit request of Rangerdude to the mediator, which had been agreed to. Rangerdude removed Willmcw's name from the closed mediation in response and moved his comments to the appropriate section. He then began revert warring to restore himself in the closed section.[65]

Personal Attacks

Willmcw has engaged in personal attacks on another user's employment and motives, and also frequently makes condescending personal remarks about other users while feigning civility.

• 19:25, 4 October 2005 "Rangerdude is zealous on issues concerning the confederacy, neo-confederate, and related issues, and his contributions should be viewed with care." - Personal attack on me.
• 02:54, 23 July 2005 Willmcw makes personal attacks on User:nskinsella's affiliation with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in edit description: "I don't get paid by the LVMI." The comment itself attacked Nskinsella's motives based on this falsely alleged financial connection.
• 01:53, 20 August 2005 - "Apparently I'm not "free" to edit the main draft eith, unless my edits are deemed "friendly" by Rangerdude." " is the main draft private too?" - condescending personal remarks
• 23:19, 17 June 2005 - "Specifically, of the persons who make the criticism above, which ones are "conservative" rather than "right-wing"? Would a "responsible editor" make that change blindly?" and "I'm sure you're a responsible editor" - condescending personal remarks made after I changed the term "right wing" to "conservative," which is less POV. Note that Willmcw frequently uses the more POV term "right wing" and has revert warred to keep it on the Claremont Institute article as I detail above.
• 04:39, 3 July 2005 - Personal attack in edit summary. Willmcw falsely insinuates that I am Derek Copold, the author of a source he was trying to remove from this article.
• 09:45, 18 August 2005 - A suspected ockpuppet user I've never met before posted racist material on my user talk page on August 18th. Willmcw, who stalks my user page as well, responded to it by posting a personal attack there insinuating he was my "friend" - "Gee Rangerdude, your pals are real nice folks. "I have a serious stake in keeping things orthodox, straight-laced to the dignity of the United States". Yeah right."

Disruption of Wikipedia to Prove a Point

Retaliatory Accusations

• 16 August 2005 - threatens to file a retaliatory allegation of wikistalking against Rangerdude to discredit Rangerdude's work on the guideline proposal Wikipedia:Stalking.
• 08:28, 18 August 2005 - follows through with August 16 threat to file retaliatory allegation of wikistalking against Rangerdude. Allegation posted in coordination with SlimVirgin, who posted a link to it and remarks aimed at discrediting Rangerdude's guideline proposal to the Village Pump announcement on it.

Retaliatory Changes to other articles

• 20:07, 4 October 2005 [66]
• 20:08, 4 October 2005 [67]
• 20:09, 4 October 2005 [68]
• 20:03, 4 October 2005 [69]
  • POV-pushing and WP:POINT disruption on 4 articles. A few hours prior, Rangerdude removed a POV term that was added to a description of Thomas DiLorenzo, noting "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on DiLorenzo article in fuller context." DiLorenzo is a libertarian economist who Willmcw dislikes politically, and in response Willmcw mimicked Rangerdude's edit description and used it to delete a quote of Ed Sebesta, a liberal activist he likes, from four different articles found above.

Biting the newcomers

Willmcw has a history of harassing new participants on wikipedia, several of whom have subsequently approached me reporting harassment by him and asking for advice on how to make him stop. Examples:

• Willmcw began wikistalking new user User:66.69.219.9 in early October. This user approached me for help on October 6th [70]. A review of this editors contributions reveals that Willmcw followed him to David R. Hawkins [71], Politics of Texas [72], Tom DeLay [73], and others.
• Willmcw began wikistalking new user User:Agiantman in August. This user approached me for help on August 19th [74]. As a newcomer, Agiantman was confused about the role of user talk pages and believed a post on his page by another user to have been political and removed it. Willmcw responded by jumping all over Agiantman and accusing him of acting in bad faith by removing the post when in fact confusion was likely the culprit.[75]
• According to User:Jonah Ayers's userpage, he no longer edits here because Willmcw chased him off by wikistalking him.[76]

8 August

• 8 August 2005
  • [77] - makes personal attacks against Rangerdude and demands that Rangerdude not edit a page where she is espousing the opposite position in a content dispute. "What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page." Also makes implicit legal threats and accuses me of "malice."

16 August

• 23:43, 16 August 2005
  • Rangerdude merged two simultaneous announcements of a new Wikipedia guideline proposal he had made on the Village Pump (one by myself, the other by Willmcw who was wikistalking me at that guideline on that particular day). This was done to prevent confusion and redundant announcements of the same thing. SlimVirgin accused Rangerdude in bad faith of deleting other contributer's comments [78] and continued to do so after Rangerdude informed her he was simply trying to merge two redundant announcements of the same proposal.[79]

17 August

• 01:37, 17 August 2005
  • [80] - makes demeaning personal comment against Rangerdude - "What is wrong with you"

18 August

• 09:23, 18 August 2005
  • [81] - SlimVirgin falsely and rudely accused Rangerdude of deleting another user's comments when in fact the culprit was a server glitch that was happening that day. Post also includes bad faith insinuations against Rangerdude about another user's actions.

• 10:53, 18 August 2005
  • [82] - makes demeaning personal comment against Rangerdude - "You're a disruptive editor"

• 18 August 2005
  • Rangerdude was working on the Wikipedia:Stalking guideline proposal, which Willmcw opposed and was actively disrupting at the time. Seeking to discredit this proposal, Willmcw, who Rangerdude had accused of wikistalking in initiating this dispute resolution proceeding back in June, had threatened [83] to make a counter-allegation of wikistalking against me to disrupt this proposal and then carried through with his threat [84]. In apparent coordination with Willmcw, SlimVirgin then posted a link to Willmcw's counter-allegation [85] on Rangerdude's Village Pump announcement of the new guideline proposal. SlimVirgin's comments indicate she clearly was doing this to disrupt and discredit Rangerdude's guideline proposal ("Rangerdude accused of the very thing he was posting about. How irritating." and "Oh dear, Rangerdude himself is now accused of wikistalking.")

16 October

• 09:20, 16 October 2005
  • [86] - Makes disparaging personal comment about Rangerdude - "Rangerdude nitpicking? Heaven forfend."

• 02:29, 16 October 2005
  • [87] - Imposes page protection at Islamophobia, an article that she is actively involved in an editing dispute on - abuse of admin power under WP:PP. Note: SlimVirgin made 18 edits, mostly major, to this article [88] within the 24 hour period prior to placing it under page protection. Edits:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]
5. [93]
6. [94]
7. [95]
8. [96]
9. [97]
10. [98]
11. [99]
12. [100]
13. [101]
14. [102]
15. [103]
16. [104]
17. [105]
18. [106]

23 October

• 22:04, 23 October 2005
  • [107] - imposes page protection on Islamophobia a second time in a week. SlimVirgin has made dozens of edits to this article and its talk page prior to page protection

27 October

• 03:21, 27 October 2005
  • [108] - Following the introduction of the evidence above showing that SlimVirgin violated WP:PPol's injunction against admins from page protecting an article they've been involved in editing, SlimVirgin attempted to unilaterally change this provision after the fact to provide herself some cover in this Arbcom hearing. She also did not discuss her changes on the talk page as is expected for official wikipedia policies

30 October

• 04:55, 30 October 2005
  • [109] - SlimVirgin makes disparaging personal comments when reminded of a previous arbcom caution against her for making personal attacks found here, threatens Rangerdude "Nevermind, you'll soon have one of your own to replace it with."

31 October

• 14:22, 31 October 2005
  • [110] - SlimVirgin attempts to unilaterally change WP:PPol again to provide cover for her violations of it & with standing objections on the talk page.

• 14:28, 31 October 2005
  • [111] - SlimVirgin attempts again to unilaterally expand the powers to page protect given to admins by WP:PPol

6 November

• 20:58, 6 November 2005
  • [112] - In this edit SlimVirgin deleted a vote in a Request for Adminship. She subsequently restored the deleted vote and indicated it was inadvertant [113], yet in the edit description she blamed this inadvertant deletion on another user and attacked him by name: "restoring vote and tally inadvertently removed and changed by Zeq. Zeq, please leave this page alone!" Indicates incivility by SlimVirgin and an inability to admit mistakes of her own doing.

26 May

• 15:42, 26 May 2005
  • [114] - Original research and POV pushing. Katefan0 added a lengthy attack on Congressman Tom DeLay, after it was noted that his name appeared in a memo by the Houston Chronicle, the article's subject. The attack on DeLay contained biased and POV language (e.g. "Houston...has an enormous freeway system"), and unrelated added allegations of fundraising impropriety by DeLay over light rail from unnamed "critics." Also includes an original research link to DeLay's campaign fundraising disclosure forms, apparently intended to make the case for the same unnamed "critics."

27 May

• 00:34, 27 May 2005
  • [115][116] - POV pushing and revert warring to promote liberal sources. Katefan0 adds extensive material from a far leftwing political source, the Austin Chronicle, to make an unrelated off-topic attack on Texas Media Watch, whose opinions on an issue discussed in the article had been quoted. Talk page objections were raised regarding the relevance and NPOV problems of the Austin Chronicle attack. Note: Katefan0 also accuses me repeatedly of using what she deems to be "dubious sources" - mostly a reference to Texas Media Watch - when she herself apparently has no problems or reservations about using the far leftwing Austin Chronicle to attack those sources.

28 May

• 06:34, 28 May 2005
  • POV pushing to discredit and remove conservative sources. After insisting on the inclusion of a highly politicized leftwing source, the Austin Chronicle, for a statement that was not directly related to the article's topic, Katefan0 repeatedly attacked the credibility and use of conservative sources that had written directly about the article's topic.[117].[118]

27 May

• 06:41, 27 May 2005
  • [119] - Initiated a VfD on an article created by Rangerdude for WP:POINT reasons.

Response to TenofAllTrades

(Note: The Jim Robinson material documented here also pertains to Katefan0's allegations against me from this article. As is clearly documented below yet neglected from Katefan0's evidence, User:Jonathan Christensen was the initiator of hostility here and began the dispute with a lengthy unprovoked personal attack on me located here after I had repeatedly asked for his cooperation in a polite tone.)

The evidence statement by TenofAllTrades found below misrepresents several facts in both of the cases referenced. The Jim Robinson discussion stemmed from events on April 14-16 2005. I created the article in a good faith effort to expand wikipedia and immediately began gathering data, links etc. to develop it. A dispute arose when another user appeared only half an hour after the article's creation, wiped it clean, and inserted it into another article without any merge tag or discussion. Myself and two other users immediately posted objections to this user on the talk page, which he ignored and followed with a subsequent redelete after the text had been restored. When his second deletion was also reverted he posted a VfD tag to the article (though wikipedia policy says a merge tag is appropriate for what he was trying to do). I objected to the VfD on policy grounds and requested undeletion on policy grounds as well, noting that it had been improperly nominated by an editor who was unilaterally rejecting consensus and through the wrong procedure for merges. Thus, contrary to TenofAllTrades' implications, the hostility on this article was initiated by the user who twice deleted its text while ignoring the talk page objections to his action.

• [120] 07:08, 14 April 2005 - I created the new Jim Robinson article
• [121] 07:31, 14 April 2005 - I began developing its text
• [122] 07:40, 14 April 2005 - User:Jonathan Christensen wipes the article clean only 30 minutes after its creation, merges to another article.
• [123] 07:42, 14 April 2005 - User:Wakeforest objects to Jonathan Christensen's deletion, restores text.
• [124] 07:44, 14 April 2005 - User:Casito posts message to Jim Robinson talk page asking Christensen to discuss before deleting.
• [125] 07:45-07:54 - I make several additions to the article
• [126] 08:06, 14 April 2005 - Jonathan Christensen deletes and merges the article again despite objections and direct requests to discuss it on the talk page first
• [127] 16:38, 14 April 2005 - I restored the text a second time with a note to see the talk page.
• [128] 16:49, 14 April 2005 - I posted a detailed objection to Christensen's delete & merge on talk page, urged him to discuss it there and asked him not to disregard other editors consensus (a total of 3 users who have now opposed it, myself included)
• [129] 19:29, 14 April 2005 - Jonathan Christensen responds to my note on the talk page in a rude and condescending tirade that demonstrated extreme incivility towards me personally ("Please, get a clue about what is actually going on here") and making several personal insinuations and attacks.
• [130] 06:45, 16 April 2005 - Jonathan Christensen VfD's the article.

Thus, in objecting to the way in which this VfD was filed and in seeking its undeletion on the same grounds, I was doing nothing more than responding under Wikipedia procedures and guidelines - as is my right, whether the objection succeeds or not - to a deletion dispute and VfD that had been initiated by another user who was behaving in open disregard for consensus and with extreme hostility toward other editors.

On the Thomas Woods article - Contrary to following Willmcw here, I'm the one who actually started this article to begin with and added it to my watch list at the time. Thus, when Willmcw showed up and deleted massive ammounts of text amounting to an astronomical 72% of the entire existing article, I saw it as simply more of his usual POV-pushing and disruptive tactics then reverted him.

• [131] 07:37, 14 March 2005 - I created the Thomas Woods article and added it to my watch page at this time.
• [132] 23:08, 8 October 2005 - Willmcw removed 584 out of 808 words existing in the article (72%) with no explanation other than "remove unsourced info"
• [133] 23:21, 8 October 2005 - I reverted the deletion with a note asking him to "find sources where necessary, but don't use this as an excuse to wipe an article clean"
• [134] 23:23, 8 October 2005 - I posted a note on the talk page elaborating on this
• [135] 23:30, 8 October 2005 - Willmcw reverts back to his deletion without responding to my request.
• [136] 23:34, 8 October 2005 - Willmcw reiterates his deletion on talk page claiming the text was deleted for POV and lack of sources but without specifying how either applied.
• [137] 23:39, 8 October 2005 - I posted a note on the talk page to Willmcw citing applicable policies that indicated mass deletions were inappropriate even when facts were disputed (WP:NPOV)
• [138] 23:40, 8 October 2005 - I restored deleted text a second time, again asked Willmcw to address the issues on the talk page & see applicable policies.
• [139] 00:11, 9 October 2005 - Willmcw reverts to the deletion again.

As these diffs and examples indicate, Willmcw was clearly behaving in a combative and difficult manner. Throughout he disregarded my objections to his mass-deletion of the majority of this article's text and generally ignored policies when I cited them to him. He was also eager to begin and sustain revert warring to preserve his deletion. I attempted to restore it twice, each time citing policies and making specific requests on the talk page, which Willmcw disregarded and continued reverting. Not long after, Katefan0 (who was a participant in Willmcw's retaliatory RfAr against me at the time, and in this current Arbitration), showed up and predictably began defending Willmcw's deletions. This is where the debate ensued between us over applicable policies. At first she attempted to argue that a guideline, WP:CITE, trumps the policy WP:NPOV that I had quoted, indicating Willmcw's deletions were inappropriate. When I pointed out that it was (1) a guideline and (2) still did not justify mass deletions, she turned to WP:V. I then responded quoting WP:V, which showed that Willmcw had not fulfilled its requirements in moving the disputed text to the talk page first before deleting. All of this was little more than a distraction though to what's really going on here. As the diffs above show, what's really going on is that Willmcw is being intentionally difficult and uncooperative in pushing a major deletion of almost 3/4ths of the article's text. I believe that he was likely behaving this way because I was the one that objected, and his behavior towards me is almost always of a similar unduly combative and uncooperative nature.

I'll make one final note that while TenofAllTrades accuses me of being the disagreement-prone editor, in both examples he gives the diffs clearly show that the hostility originated elsewhere. In the Jim Robinson dispute, the hostility began with User:Jonathan Christensen's multiple deletes and extremely uncivil post to me [140] on the talk page. I merely responded to that and, while I mounted a vigorous pursuit of my position to the extent of motions wikipedia's VfD procedures allowed me, I believe that I generally retained civility in the process. In the Thomas Woods dispute, the most combative party was clearly Willmcw, who disregarded multiple comments and policy cites and was quick to engage in revert warring (I restored the text twice then decided to seek RfC's and other input when he kept revert warring). It should also be noted that at the time of this dispute, the two main participants in it other than myself were Willmcw and Katefan0 - both editors who have a long history of animosity with me and which this arbitration is about. Willmcw has been harassing me in hundreds of edits since early February, and Katefan0 decided to make her oh-so-neutral consensus-minded comments in favor of Willmcw's position on Thomas Woods even though she had joined Willmcw's retaliatory RfAr against me just a few weeks earlier. Thus, in accusing me of being disagreeable at Thomas Woods, he is clearly failing to recognize that a long previous history existed with Willmcw and Katefan0. Unfortunately this was one of those disputes that happened in between the time when I first attempted to get dispute resolution underway with these two editors and the actual acceptance of the case, which was only 3 days ago. Rangerdude 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Willmcw

The section below in which Willmcw attacks me for adding the word "controversy" into article text is curious in itself as it conveys just how deep his stalker mentality goes. Notice that he even digs back to almost a year ago to find my very first IP edits as a newcomer to wikipedia in order to make his case. That he would even attempt to ascertain and catalog the origin of these edits is unusual in itself as it conveys a mindset of obsession - one that spends hours upon hours and days upon days reviewing virtually every single edit I've ever made, or that he thinks I've ever made. Indeed, Willmcw has in some cases even incorrectly identified other IP edits as having been mine. In both his original complaint and in his "response" to me below Willmcw falsely attributes an anon IP address edit to the William Quantrill article located here to me and purports this edit to be among the main reasons he began wikistalking me back in January. He claims he "was very concerned with" the Quantrill edit, which he also claims he found by "Checking his (my) contribution list" (I do not know how though, as I did not make this edit and there are no other edits on that anon IP's contribution list). He even states the allegation that I "took a Southern Civil War guerilla who had been previously described as a terrorist and turned him into a hero. Even without knowing much about the exact topic it was obvious that the editor was making a very POV edit." He then goes on to admit "Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits." The only problem with all this - I didn't even make the main POV edit he keeps attributing to me and purports to be the basis for his continuous following of my edits!

Another spurious charge of Willmcw's is of note. He also claims to justify his following of me based upon the fact that I added critical material to the Sheila Jackson Lee article. What he does not bother to note, however, is that this material is factual and extensively sourced in several newspaper articles. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia's NPOV tutorial has a provision that explicitly deals with this sort of situation (and neither wikistalking nor harassment with hostile allegations of POV pushing are among the solutions it offers). From Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance:

An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

(Note: Katefan0 also apparently prefers to disregard this stipulation for NPOV as a large bulk of her evidence page accuses me of simply adding sourced and factual material that differs in direction from the political POV she prefers, all the while neglecting to note that she reacted in hostility to the remedy of adding to the article when it was suggested).

I did nothing more than to add sourced, factual material that reflected a widely documented critical POV of Jackson-Lee and did so because this was the information about Jackson-Lee that I was most familiar with. But instead of responding as WP guidelines say to do, Willmcw has now essentially accused my edits there of being "an irredeemable piece of propaganda" as the guidelines say not to do and cited this bad faith belief as an excuse to wikistalk and badger my edits everywhere else on Wikipedia!

That said, I will respond in simply noting that the term "controversial" is not inherently good or bad either way. In fact it's often a perfectly appropriate word in some circumstances - for example, introducing substantive and sourced disputes surrounding a particular topic, or connoting the existence of a dispute about something. For example, a section containing criticisms of an article subject could be legitimately titled "controversies" if that is indeed what it contains. The problem with what Willmcw did was not simply in his use of the word "controversies" though - it was in his selective use of that term and his placement of that term in locations designed to promote a political point of view that caused the problem. Put another way, Willmcw fought for the addition and retention of the word "controversy" in the opening sentence of an article about a conservative/libertarian topic that he personally dislikes while simultaneously fighting for the removal of that exact same term from a similar placement in the opening sentence of an article about a liberal topic that he personally supports.

This may be seen in his August 2nd edit to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian economist he dislikes. In this edit [141] Willmcw added "controversial" to the opening sentence. When three different editors objected to the POV-pushing motive behind this, he also strenuously argued to keep the term on the Hoppe talk page and also added it back.[142][143]

Contrast that with how he behaved at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal group he likes. In this edit [144] Willmcw removes "controversial" from the opening header sentence and places it later in the article. When questions arose about this on the talk page, he responded "In general, adding "controversial" to the lead sentence is like adding "famous". Better just to describe the subject than to apply epithets."[145]

As is plainly evident, Willmcw applied two different standards to the opening sentences of these two different articles. When the topic was conservative/libertarian and he disliked its political viewpoint he supported "controversial" in the opening sentence, saying it was accurate. When the topic was liberal and he supported its viewpoints, he opposed "controversial" in the opening sentence, saying it was an "epithet." In short, he was applying exactly opposite and contradictory standards to two different subjects based on whether they agreed or disagreed with his personal political POV. That inconsistency, and not the straw man argument of simply using "controversial" itself, is the problem with Willmcw's edits and the reason why his edits described above were breaches of the NPOV policy. It should be further noted that despite me explicitly making this distinction and noting the objection to be with Willmcw's contradictory and hypocritical placement of "controversial" in the opening sentence about people he dislikes politically while removing it from the opening sentence of those he likes, he has persisted in attacking the false straw man claim that I object to any use of the term and thus must be a hypocrite for having used it in any context whatsoever. This approach he is taking is the height of absurdity and serves only to reaffirm how deep seated his stalking obsession goes, seeing as he appears to be reviewing every single edit I've ever made to wikipedia in search of any mention of the word "controversy" or "controversial." Rangerdude 19:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL RESPONSE In light of the recent additions of material by Willmcw below, a response addessing the most recent charges he has levied is in order. Willmcw's section entitled "Negative personal comments about editors" contains allegations that border on the absurd. While the evidence I have presented above shows Willmcw making direct personal attacks (e.g. when he maligned User:nskinsella with attacks and false insinuations about his employment on July 23rd), not one single example cited by Willmcw in this section reasonably constitutes a personal attack on another user. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are simple talk page statements of disagreement with other editors! Many are perfectly polite, reasonable, and straightforward in tone (e.g. [146], [147]) and even those that are more forceful abstain from abuse of the sort Willmcw has committed and consist of little more than mild expressions of frustration with other users for engaging in "censorship" (my statement to an editor who had repeatedly reverted my content additions to an article w/o explanation [148]), being "petty" or "speculative" (my statement to an editor who was seeking to add unsourced speculation to an article [149]), being disruptive (my statement to an editor who was flooding an RfC with personal attacks and insinuations about the employment of three different wikipedia editors [150]), and POV pushing (my criticism of a personal bias in content added by an editor who claimed she was adding neutrality [151]). In fact, Willmcw's list of my comments would seem to indicate that he believes that any expression of disagreement I make with another editor is an attack, regardless of the circumstances.

A review of Willmcw next section, purporting to contain negative attacks by me against him, reveals more of the same. According to Willmcw, I'm apparently not allowed to complain to him about his POV pushing[152] and removal of material from articles for POV reasons[153]. Nor am I allowed to point out in comments to him that he's violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:POINT [154] [155]. Neither am I allowed to criticize the fact that he's applying a double standard to different articles [156]. Naming policies he's violated and asking him to consider taking a break from an article to cool down [157] - also out of the question. Heck, based on this link [158] he apparently thinks I shouldn't be allowed to point out that he misportrayed Wikipedia's policy on linking to blog articles! Judging by the comments he cites, the real issue here is not whether I've improperly "attacked" him. Rather, it is the fact that I've criticized and challenged his editing practices at all!

Willmcw's 3rd section is just plain silly. He apparently thinks it's also an "attack" to complain about him stalking me - the main subject of this Arbitration. This section is rendered all the more absurd by the fact that the Arbcom has repeatedly found that wiki-stalking is a bannable offense and that Wikipedia guidelines WP:STALK consider it a form of harassment.

He next list charges that I've gone "out of my way to stir up opposition" against him by (gasp!) discussing his violation of wikipedia policies with other editors who have experienced the same. Willmcw has apparently stalked my user page discussions with other editors in addition to his usual daily perusal and harassment of my edits to wikipedia, thus producing his list of communications I've made with other editors. In most cases the communications were nothing more than responses to other editors who contacted me to report that they were being harassed or wikistalked by Willmcw, often in the same manner he has harassed and wikistalked me. Many of these editors saw this RfAr or its predecessor RfC's in which I complained of Willmcw's wikistalking and contacted me to relate similar experiences or ask advice on how to deal with him (a review of my talk page shows multiple posts of this sort initiated by other users - [159] [160] [161] [162]). In fact, at least two of the other editors he complains of me communicating with over his stalking behavior have also joined this very same arbitration against him to report none other than wikistalking and harassment by him! If anything, these communications are indicative of the fact that Willmcw has earned himself a reputation as a wikistalker and frequently badgers other users - often newbies to wikipedia (thus violating WP:BITE) to the extent that they actively seek out help and openly report their negative experiences with him to other editors.

The remainder of Willmcw's list is replete with frivolous charges. Take the "Abuse of process" section for example. In this listing he apparently looked up every single namespace edit I've ever made and labelled it an "abuse" just because I participated there! Apparently he thinks I should not be allowed to (1) participate in Requests for Comment, (2) file requests for mediation, comment, or incident complaints against other users who break wikipedia policy, (3) vote against somebody he likes in a Request for Adminship, (4) propose any new policies or guidelines to wikipedia, or (5) make any announcements on the Village Pump. Each of these activities are common procedures available to any registered wikipedian. Many of them are things that Willmcw himself participates in, as do thousands of other editors. That he would track the entire history of my participation in the namespace is further evidence of his stalking habits, and seeking to deprive me of access to these tools by labelling them "abuse" is itself indicative of an anti-consensus mindset of control and power abuse on his part. Rangerdude 08:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum

If any Arbcom member has doubts that Willmcw habitually stalks and even obsesses over my edits to wikipedia, I urge you to simply review the manner in which he constructed his "evidence" section below. Whereas most other examples entered into evidence by myself and the other editors involved in this case have been links to diffs regarding specific and described disputes with Willmcw on articles we have jointly edited with him, Willmcw has chosen to make his case by literally reviewing just about every single edit I have ever made on Wikipedia, composing lengthy lists of them here and elsewhere such as on his sandbox pages, and attempting to strain even the smallest insinuation of impropriety out of every opportunity he can. Consider the following facts:

• At the time of this posting, there are a combined 440 diffs in this evidence file from 8 different editors.
• Of this total of 440, 212 of those diffs (or 48%) were entered by Willmcw.
• Of his 211 diffs, 202 (or 46% of all evidence in this case) are in lists Willmcw has assembled against me.

Far from demonstrating tangable policy violations or even cases of dubious editing, the majority of Willmcw's 202 diffs against me are links to me doing everything from simply voting in RfA's, participating in RfC's, disputing content in an article on factual or NPOV grounds, or simply stating a position or case that differs with his own POV. I believe it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of Willmcw's "evidence" against me demonstrates absolutely no impropriety on my part whatsoever. In fact, he has assembled little more than lengthy lists of me engaging in regular everyday editing practices that he himself and any other seriously involved wikipedia editor does.

At its strongest point, Willmcw's "evidence" list points to comments I have made that are, at the very worst, mildly uncivil statements, almost always from middle of a heated discussion in which the other parties were behaving similarly if not worse (e.g. Jonathan Christensen in the Jim Robinson dispute, SlimVirgin in the disputes that are part of this case, Cberlet at LVMI, and - yes - Willmcw himself). I'll openly admit that I was not always the most civil I could be in some of these disputes and openly apologize to any I may have upset, though I'll add an important caveat that I never engaged in profanity, threats, personal abuse, or other similar negative characteristics that would indicate a serious breach of decorum on my part. By contrast, Willmcw has engaged in personal abuse of other editors such as his attack upon the financial motives of Nskinsella at the Ludwig von Mises Institute article and has committed severe breaches of important doctrines like WP:FAITH against me dating back to before we even formally met on the neo-confederate article.

As further evidence of Willmcw's stalker mentality, the Arbcom should be aware of the fact that a great percentage of his extensive diff list comes from editing discussions where he was not even an involved editor or party to any dispute - many dating back to 6 months ago or more. This is a very curious practice for an editor who is currently accusing me of "dwelling in the past" on the Workshop page of this arbitration. Some examples from his list include my edits at:

• Jim Robinson - Willmcw was not involved here
• Jesus AD/ACE dispute - Willmcw was not involved here
• Taney Arrest Warrant - cites diff from almost a year ago - Willmcw was not involved here
• Franklin D. Roosevelt - Willmcw was not involved here
• History of the United States (1980-1988) - Willmcw was not involved here
• Nazism - Willmcw was not involved here
• Killian documents - cites diff from almost a year ago - Willmcw was not involved here

Then, of course, there are literally dozens of articles that Willmcw had absolutely no interest in before stalking me to them such as Claremont Institute and Morrill Tariff, which he subsequently dispute warred at. The above examples are clear though in that they show an editor who is actively digging through my work on Wikipedia to an extreme and harassing degree. This is not simply reviewing and mutually checking edits on articles of common interest - this is reviewing literally every single post I've ever made in search for something that could be spun into an allegation of impropriety, no matter how false an insinuation it takes and regardless of whether or not he was even involved. This is wikistalking to harass with an intent to drive me off wikipedia by making it so difficult to edit that I cannot so much as make a simple grammar or spelling correction without it attracting unwarranted and bad faith scrutiny by Willmcw, much less make any substantive additions to articles. Rangerdude 19:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Katefan0

A review of the allegations made below by Katefan0 indicates that she is incapable of comprehending or abiding by the fair and plainly stated principles of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance:

An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

Notice that she seldom if ever takes issue with the factual content of my additions. Rather, her chief grievance is always an allegation that I supposedly made an article "imbalanced" by adding sourced, factual information about one side's position. As the NPOV tutorial clearly indicates, imbalance is NOT a legitimate reason to declare an article "an irredeemable piece of propaganda" yet that is exactly what Katefan0 is doing against me. If what I did by adding the content Katefan0 disputes violated wikipedia's NPOV mandates in any way, then wikipedia's NPOV mandates must be plagued with inconsistent and contradictory information as the NPOV tutorial I based my edits on above clearly indicates that Katefan0's characterization of my additions as what that guideline calls "an irredeemable piece of propaganda" and her refusal to follow the remedy of adding to the article were in the wrong.

I will further add that Katefan0 is guilty of violating WP:FAITH towards me as she has assumed the very worst about my additions to the article from the first moment she took issue with them. Even before Katefan0 stated her dispute with the Houston Chronicle article, she was making bad faith attacks on my motives in communications on Willmcw's talk page. Her post here [163] attacks me as "obvious POV warriors like Rangerdude" and complains to Willmcw that I suggested she remedy the situation by "adding to the article—not to subtracting from it" as the NPOV tutorial clearly instructs. I openly invited her to add to the article as a remedy many times on the Houston Chronicle talk page as well [164] [165]. In most cases she refused and instead continued her quest to remove sourced and material additions I made.

Despite repeated pleas and posts informing her of this, she also seems unwilling to follow the tutorial's prescribed remedy - "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Once again Katefan0's gut reaction in each and every case has been to seek the deletion of the material I made no matter how factual it was, not counterbalance it with new additions. This happened with her on Sheila Jackson Lee and throughout the entire Houston Chronicle dispute, where she openly espoused removing a section about a memorandum scandal at the Chronicle because she personally didn't consider it newsworthy enough.

A similar strategy may be seen in her near-continuous ad hominem assaults on any source that substantiates a fact she does not personally like. She harps on me to no end, for example, for citing the Houston Review [166] (which was incidentally one of the main sources that uncovered the aforementioned scandal at the Chronicle) by attacking the source itself through ad hominems. She repeatedly labels it "dubious," "conservative," "defunct," and complains that an archived copy of one of their articles from Free Republic is cited. In her usage of it, terms like "defunct" are clearly intended as pejorative attacks the source's credibility. This would be like going through wikipedia and changing every reference of "historian Stephen Ambrose said..." to "dead historian Stephen Ambrose said..." as a means of maligning him. For all this bluster and attack upon the source, she does not challenge the content of the Houston Review itself!

In one case she does post her own personal criticisms against the Houston Review's statistical analysis of the Houston Chronicle's light rail content. But this is frivolous as well for three reasons:

1. The statistics are explicitly presented as a viewpoint of the Houston Review itself with a link to their article.
2. Her challenges to that analysis misrepresent it, claiming it "only analyzes content the month of the light rail referendum" and "it does not analyze content prior to that month to give a basis for comparison." In reality both of these claims are falsehoods. The article itself clearly states the study analyzed content "Since June" 2003 until the November 2003 referendum - a period of just over five months, including the four months prior to the month of the referendum.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts]
3. Even if we were to assume that Katefan0's critiques of the study were valid, and as the above indicates they are not, that would constitute original research on her part, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Katefan0 now claims without elaboration or reason that my critique of her original research is "simply misleading." Nothing could be further from the truth. In attacking the Houston Review study (which is presented strictly as a position taken by the Houston Review), she has attempted to conduct her own personal counter-analysis of its evidence and attack its use as a source based on her own findings. She has resorted to doing this because she isn't able to find another external source critiquing the Houston Review's study or methods. Furthermore, in conducting her own personal counter-analysis she has repeatedly mischaracterized the published Houston Review study itself as evidenced above!

Katefan0 behaves similarly in her treatment of Texas Media Watch as a source. When I linked to a Texas Media Watch report that covered the Chronicle scandal, Katefan0 went ballistic and started posting lengthy ad hominem attacks on Texas Media Watch as a source. Included were a series of attacks from the far left wing Austin Chronicle [167] that had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the Texas Media Watch report I cited as a source. Since Katefan0 is apparently oh-so concerned about the encyclopedic quality of outside newspaper sources that are quoted in this article, let's take a look at the highly professional and journalistic NPOV content exhibited in the Austin Chronicle story she added here...

• "In its Tomstown counterattack, the GOP keeps looking for scapegoats" - article subtitle (note: "Tomstown" is an ad hominem used for Tom DeLay)
• "Republican operatives" - pejorative terminology
• "The noisiest complainant about Earle is GOP state Chair Tina Benkiser" - snide description of GOP chairwoman
• "Chief sucker-puncher on the McNeely story has been Sherry Sylvester" - ad hominem on Sylvester, the operator of Texas Media Watch
• "Sylvester appears to be the only employee, and very little thinking visibly goes on there, but OK." - snide ad hominem allegation against Sylvester and Texas Media Watch (note: this crudely written attack comment is the piece of "factual information" Katefan0 was trying to add to the Houston Chronicle article after I quoted a piece of sourced information from Texas Media Watch!)
• "It also devoted a considerable amount of virtual memory to laughable accusations that the papers were insufficiently enthusiastic about Bush's war on Iraq." - snide partisan commentary about Texas Media Watch
• "That's not surprising, since Media Watch is funded by the Lone Star Foundation (devoted to "family, freedom, free enterprise, and the Constitution"), and both are bankrolled by former Austin banker David Hartman, a 1994 GOP candidate for state treasurer and a state Republican heavyweight." - Ad hominem attack on Texas Media Watch's funding
• "Hartman also underwrites The Lone Star Report, a conservative legislative newsletter; LSR's leading lights include The Dallas Morning News hard-rightist William Murchison and Citizens for a Sound Economy's Peggy Venable, whose most recent contribution to the public discourse was to accuse MoveOn.org of being a Communist front-group." - McCarthy-style shotgun ad hominems, guilt-by-association attacks on Texas Media Watch
• "Sylvester herself is a former politics reporter for the San Antonio Express-News, where one of her last features was a fawning profile of GOP big wallet James Leininger, an unctuous performance that perhaps caught the eye of conservative spin-doctors." - Snide ad hominems on Sylvester and Leininger
• "Also joining the counterattack was none other than Rep. Phil King, R-Re-Redistricting" - ad hominem on State Rep. Phil King

Katefan0 claims that this article provides "balancing context about the organization" but let's look at what the link really is. The link is nothing more than a highly partisan hatchet job attack on Texas Media Watch and Republicans in general, replete with innuendo, speculation, and all sorts of namecalling. What's even more astounding is that the "context" about Texas Media Watch in this link says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the content of their article I cited about the Houston Chronicle rail memo scandal. It's nothing more than a barrage of crude personal attacks on Sylvester, questioning everything from her financial motives to her intelligence. In fact the main piece of "context" Katefan0 used this article for is taken from a snide parenthetical innuendo against Sylvester that I'll repeat again for all to see: "Sylvester appears to be the only employee, and very little thinking visibly goes on there, but OK."

Also note that Katefan0 is now trying to accuse me of hypocrisy for using the Houston Press, a weekly tabloid in Houston, as a source while criticizing her use of the Austin Chronicle since both are weekly tabloids. This argument is about as valid as saying "You can't quote news stories from Time magazine since you won't let me quote news stories from National Lampoon even though they're both magazines." It's a red herring argument. The real issue is not whether they are both tabloids, but whether their content is reputable and journalistic. The stories i've quoted from the Houston Press are journalistic in nature and report on political news events. The article Katefan0 quoted from the Austin Chronicle, as evidenced by the excerpts above, was little more than an extremely vitriolic anti-Republican political rant. Katefan0 also likes to claim that her position on the whole TTM dispute was supported by "two other editors" so as to give the false illusion that there was a 3 to 1 consensus against me (herself plus User:Willmcw and User:Johntex - both of whom she recruited to participate in the Houston Chronicle dispute, including with full knowledge that Willmcw had a history of ongoing disputes elsewhere with me and that we were not on the most pleasant terms). What she neglects to note, however, is that in addition to myself User:Nobs01 posted statements in support of Texas Media Watch [168]. And despite that she has the nerve to accuse me of "manipulating" consensus!

Please keep in mind that all of the above is from one single Austin Chronicle article - the same Austin Chronicle article that Katefan0 vehemently pushed for inclusion [169] [170] and purports to be newsworthy and reputable, all the while as she dismisses factual content from conservative publications such as the Houston Review and Texas Media Watch based on ad hominem attacks on their political leanings, financial sources, and in TMW's case their alleged staff composition as derived from ad hominem rumor speculation in none other than the same Austin Chronicle hit piece. Given the content exhibited above, it is outright hypocritical and brazenly irresponsible to simultaneously push for inclusion of the Austin Chroncle material while labelling the Houston Review and Texas Media Watch as "dubious sources." Can you say "double standard," Katefan0? I know you can. Rangerdude 19:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by user:Willmcw on user:Rangerdude

Rangerdude has been a tenacious POV warrior from the very first day that he registered, January 8, 2005, when he filed mediation "against" another user. Since then he has used a variety of debating and logic techniques in order to present his POV and attack other POVs. These techniques have included abuses of process and harassment of other editors. He makes negative personal comments in edit summaries and talk pages. He shows bad faith, fails to assume good faith in others, and complains when others don't show good faith in his own efforts. In editing articles he is quick to revert and makes hypocritical application of Wikipedia policies to suit his purposes.

Rangerdude appears to focus on conflicts. Many of the his conflicts have been created by him, directly or indirectly. His talk page comments have been divisive. His constant repetition of the "wiki-stalker" attack has led to disruptive editors making that accusation too, and Rangerdude has fomented their actions, encouraging them to file complaints against me, even creating a 1400-word guide on how to attacking me. He sought to write the Wikipedia policy that defined "wiki-stalking" while insisting that I had a conflict of interest and so should not participate. He has been argumentative in RfCs, VfDs, and RfA, in what amounts to an abuse of process.

Rangerdude has spent a significant portion of his time at Wikipedia in disruptive user conflicts. As of November 1, 2005, 9:00 am UTC, Kate's "editcount" says that Rangerdude has made 2719 edits to 573 distinct pages. Those edits include 132 negative personal comments that I've logged in regular article and user pages, plus about 600 edits to project pages which touched on user conduct. It is likely that around 20-25% of Rangerdude's total contributions have been part of user disputes. More recently, my estimate is that of his 500 edits between 00:37, August 19, 2005 and 06:27, November 2, 2005 more than 250 of them, over 50%, have been related to user conflicts (including this ArbCom matter) and a large portion of the rest were engaged in editing conflicts.

• Note about formatting. Edit summaries are marked "ES". Comments by Rangerdude are in italics. Where diffs are repeated because they are applicable to multiple sections they will be marked in italics in subsequent references (if I catch them).

Personal attacks

Note: see a prior version of this page (here) for quotations of each of the assertions in this sections that I've taken out to make the listing more compact.

Responses by Rangerdude to comments by others

Rangerdude is sensitive to any comments about his own editing, and brushes off all complaints. Even in this arbitration he has picked out seemingly minor jabs and called them "demeaning personal references". He apparently considers any negative personal comment to be a personal attack. (I broadly agree with that standard, if not his specific assertions.)

Negative personal comments about editors

A large percentage of Rangerdude's talk page contributions are personal comments about editors, usually negative. He routinely accuses editors of being POV pushers who are uninformed on the topic and ignorant of Wikipedia practices. After questioning the editors's motives he may request they do remedial research on Wikipedia policies, stop editing until they learn more, "grow up", or stop "whining". If they don't, their contributions will be ignored. I have found more than 45 such negative personal comments, including these.

• 20:58, January 8, 2005 [171]
• 19:24, February 13, 2005 [172]
• 05:26, March 26, 2005 [173]
• 17:27, April 17, 2005 [174]
• 16:01, May 1, 2005 [175]
• 20:47, May 3, 2005 [176]
• 00:35, May 9, 2005 [177]
• 00:18, May 10, 2005 [178]
• 22:57, May 26, 2005 [179]
• 23:07, May 26, 2005 [180]
• 03:40, May 28, 2005 [181]
• 23:03, June 2, 2005 [182]
• 20:57, July 29, 2005 [183]
• 22:39, October 10 , 2005 [184]

Negative personal comments about me

Rangerdude gratuitously complains about my editing, my motives, my POV, my lack of wikiquette, and other offenses, my violations of POINT, my biting of newcomers, my disruption, and of course, my wikistalking (covered next). I have found over 45 instances, including these.

• 19:38, January 29, 2005 [185]
• 05:55, February 11, 2005 [186]
• 02:06, February 15, 2005 [187]
• 03:29, February 16, 2005 [188]
• 04:30, July 3, 2005 [189]
• 04:54, July 3, 2005 [190]
• 05:07, July 23, 2005 [191]
• 18:32, July 23, 2005 [192]
• 17:44, July 24, 2005 [193]
• 05:38, July 25, 2005 [194]
• 05:49, July 25, 2005 [195]
• 17:33, September 8, 2005 [196]
• 06:54, September 20, 2005 [197]
• 15:42, October 3, 2005 [198]
• 05:47, October 5, 2005 [199]
• 15:10, October 5, 2005 [200]
• 15:21, October 5, 2005 [201]
• 04:36, October 9, 2005 [202]
• 04:24, October 11, 2005 [203]
• 06:45, October 11, 2005 [204]

Using "Wiki-stalker" as a personal attack

Rangerdude has used "wiki-stalker" as an epithet against me for months, on at least 35 occasions outside of mediations, RfCs, etc. Many of these personal comments have been in edit summaries.

• 07:13 June 14, 2005 [205]
• 07:54 June 14, 2005 [206]
• 08:00 June 14, 2005 [207]
• 08:30 June 14, 2005 [208]
• 09:00, June 14, 2005 [209]
• 17:51 June 14, 2005 [210]
• 21:46 June 14, 2005 [211]
• 22:28 June 14, 2005 [212]
• 01:10, June 15, 2005 [213]
• 09:07, June 15, 2005 [214]
• 09:34, June 15, 2005 [215]
• 04:29, June 18, 2005 [216]
• 00:33, July 5, 2005 [217]
• 08:07, July 5, 2005 [218]
• 20:52, August 16, 2005 [219]
• 01:39, August 17, 2005 [220]
• 18:34, August 18, 2005 [221]
• 22:54, August 18, 2005 [222]
• 04:39, August 19, 2005 [223]
• 01:15, August 20, 2005 [224]
• 01:26, August 20, 2005 [225]
• 5:42, August 20, 2005 [226]
• 06:40, September 20, 2005 [227]
• 06:21, September 30, 2005 [228]
• 00:15, October 7, 2005 [229]

Fomenting

Rangerdude actively disrupts Wikipedia by going out of his way to stir up opposition to me (and other editors). He has inspired and encouraged disruptive editors such as Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs)/Steve espinola (talk · contribs), Thodin (talk · contribs)/Potatoe (talk · contribs), Agiantman (talk · contribs), Bigelow (talk · contribs), Nskinsella (talk · contribs), and Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs)/Cognition (talk · contribs).

• 04:10, June 18, 2005 [230]
• 18:32, July 24, 2005 [231]
• 07:06, July 28, 2005 [232]
• 23:54, August 6, 2005 [233]
• 02:50, August 10, 2005 [234]
• 04:39, August 19, 2005 [235]
• 06:40, September 20, 2005 [236]
• 00:15, October 7, 2005 [237]

Wiki-stalking by Rangerdude

Rangerdude has followed me to many articles. In some instances, his edits seem to have been intended to annoy, harass, or make a point.

• 23:14, January 28, 2005 [238]
• 07:48, February 4, 2005 [239]
• 07:00, February 10, 2005 [240]
• 20:12, February 15, 2005 [241]
• 03:09, February 16, 2005 [242]
• 04:00, February 16, 2005 [243]
• 15:48, May 27, 2005 [244]
• 15:50, May 27, 2005 [245]
• 22:01, May 27, 2005 [246]
• 07:59, June 14, 2005 [247]
• 09:24, June 15, 2005 [248]
• 04:29, June 18, 2005 [249]
• 23:38, July 1, 2005 [250]
• 21:01, August 6, 2005 [251]
• 23:45, August 8, 2005 [252]
• 07:32, September 20, 2005 [253]
• 05:55, September 30, 2005 [254]
• 17:20, November 1, 2005 [255]

Requests from me

Posts from me regarding Rangerdude's behavior, and requests that he stop making personal remarks.

• 08:34, June 14, 2005 [256]
• 09:08, June 14, 2005 [257]
• 04:55, June 15, 2005 [258]
• 09:15, June 15, 2005 [259]
• 19:49, July 5, 2005 [260]
• 05:52, July 25, 2005 [261]
• 20:17, July 25, 2005 [262]
• 08:28, August 18, 2005 [263]

Abuse of process

Rangerdude has initiated a large number of "dispute resolutions". However it’s hard to find any that have created consensus or resolved differences with other editors. He has been argumentative in RfCs, VfDs, and RfAs. He has has pursued the creation of a "Wikistalking" policy, tailoring it to target my actions. (FYI, I support the creation of a guideline or policy on this topic. However Rangerduded's leadership in doing so has always been problematic). This is a list of administrative matters that Rangerdude has either initiated or participated in notably.

• 09:15, January 8, 2005 [264] [[Wikipedia::Requests_for_mediation]] ES add request for mediation over problem user "172"

• 04:49, 17 Apr 2005 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jim Robinson [Long complaints over the handling of this deletion/merger.]

• 20:47, May 3, 2005 last edit Wikipedia:Deletion review [More complaints on the Jim Robinson merger]

• 20:40, May 8, 2005 [265] Wikipedia:Requests for comment ES - +BC/BCE, NPOV edit [the Ad/CE matter]

• 07:26, May 27, 2005 [266] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusty Mangum [Nominated an article for deletion apparently in response to its editor, user:Johntex, having VfDed one of Rangerdude's articles.]

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude [Filed by me and withdrawn hours later when we agreed to mediation. Rangerdude turned it into an attack page on me and added his allegations for the next couple of months]

• User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking (continuing to edit after RfC withdrawn)

• 22:32, July 25, 2005 Last edit 03:04, July 30, 2005 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw

• 00:27 July 26, 2005 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw

• 07:04, August 5, 2005 [267] Wikipedia:Requests for comment re: Chip Berlet]

• 19:24, August 5, 2005 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon [Filed a "user RfC" that was not certified.]

• 19:44, August 6, 2005 [268] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk [Apparently opposes RfA because of supposed friendship of other editors, requests to see all private correspondence between two editors.]

• Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith#Proposal on Stalking et seq

• Wikipedia:Stalking & Wikipedia talk:Stalking

• 06:44, August 6, 2005 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

• 23:30, August 6, 2005 [269] User:Rangerdude [Creates an essay about Wikistalkers, his first substantive user page entry. This essay is later copied by another user to form the project page Wikipedia:Stalking.]

• 22:13, August 8, 2005 [270] Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance Re: Slimvirgin

• 23:36, August 16, 2005 [271] Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) [blanked my notice announcing the wikistalking guideline proposal, replaced it with his own, then fought over it (last edit])]

• 05:01, August 17, 2005 [272] [violation of self-reference linking from cyberstalking to Wiki-stalking]

• 08:10, August 18, 2005 [273] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - complaint about my editing Wikipedia:Stalking.

• 09:05, August 18, 2005 [274] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection [complaint that Slimvirgin had protected his talk page (done in response to repeated vandalism)]

• 09:14, August 18, 2005 [275] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - complaint about Slimvirgin cleaning vandalism from his talk page

• 19:14, August 18, 2005 [276] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

• 19:23, August 18, 2005 [277] ES- Restore text of complaint against SlimVirgin deleted by Willmcw, log Willmcw's deletion as vandalism
  • 19:25, August 18, 2005 [278] In the time I was posting this request, User:Willmcw deleted a message I posted to the incident board stating my complaints against himself and SlimVirgin for harassment and abuse of administrator powers and informing the latter of my decision to extend the case against Willmcw to her as well...Removal of complaints by other users pertaining to yourself and your friends constitutes vandalism, Will.
  • [This was in response to my accidentally deleting a comment. Rangerdude had previously accidentally deleted comments in the same manner.][279] [280]

• 05:40, September 8, 2005 [281] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography re: Morrill Tariff

• 06:23, September 8, 2005 [282] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

• 04:59, October 9, 2005 [283] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [Complaint about my editing of Thomas Woods, in addition to the RfC that he filed simultaenously. [284]].

POV pushing

"Controversy"

One of Rangerdude's POV pushing techniques is to complain about the editing behavior of other editors even when they do something what he has done repeatedly. His complaint about the use of the words "controvery" and "controversial" is a good example. Rangerdude has added the words, which he here calls a "scareword", to articles on at least 73 occasions (some of which were reverts when other editors removed the words, though I didn't count all of them), in one case adding the words four places in one article. In his comments he says that the term is either justified or is not POV. Then, in another comment, he says that it is POV, justifying removing it (one of his rare removals of the term). Rangerdude's claim that I am POV pushing for using the term once, when he has done so scores of times, is typical of his combative and hypocritical approach to edit warring.

• 09:05, December 16, 2004 [285] [editing as 68.92.217.49 (talk · contribs)]
• 21:16, January 1, 2005 [286] x4 [editing as 68.90.42.48 (talk · contribs)]
• 06:49, February 4, 2005 [287] (Willmcw - you're gatekeeping toward a POV again. Like it or not Sebesta is a controversial figure and this should be noted)
• 20:33, February 13, 2005 [288] Jensen incident was more than just "articles" - involved a widely publicized controversy. Quit making unnecessary and deconstructive stalker edits
• 08:00, June 14, 2005 [289] [revert] revert stalker edit re: "controversy" - def. n. " A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - not a POV term
• 23:43, July 4, 2005 [290]
• 01:08, July 5, 2005 [291]
• 20:17, July 25, 2005 [292]
• 20:41, 29 July 2005 [293] "controversial" in title connotes POV. Simply describe as "historical views" and let reader decide for himself [explanation for removing the term, one of only four occasions that he did so]
• 17:47, October 10, 2005 [294]

Justifications for removing or keeping material

Rangerdude uses conflicting standards to decide what material will be removed or retained in articles. He sometimes says that material must be left in the article until disproven, while in other instances he insists that anything unproven must be removed. Though many editors show a similiar variability, Rangerdude is insistent in each case that his is the only correct interpretation, even when it contradicts the point he was making on other pages.

• 20:58, January 8, 2005 [295] Your 6 footnotes are very minor improvements but even they are problematic. Anybody can pull out a random out of print civil war book and claim that on page 137 it talks about people eating mud. But problems still remain about whether the context is being properly represented (for example - did they eat mud on an average day of any given year or did they eat mud in the winter of 1864 when a war had ravaged the countryside or in a year of bad crops), whether the author's claim is accurately repeated, whether the author himself reputably and accurately conveyed it. A better way to source things like that passage, then, is to quote the author and name him in the text or, if possible, find original source material instead of secondary or third hand accounts.

• 06:41, January 26, 2005 [296] Removed addition by JimWae - Info in this paragraph is almost entirely redundant

• 8:22, January 26, 2005 [297] More material is good, but the material you are adding is almost entirely redundant. Find something new that isn't in the article already

• 20:02, January 26, 2005 [298] Most of the material is still redundant - see discussion section for examples. Reverted edits pending discussion.

• 04:37, January 27, 2005 [299] This is speculation and extraneous to the Morrill Tariff in particular -see discussion

• 18:43, February 4, 2005 [300] Added POV tag - user El C is gatekeeping, maintaining clear POV terminology in articles

• 22:21, February 4, 2005 [301] I appreciate your past work on this article, but previous edits on wikipedia are not set in stone nor are they always the best edits for an article. This article, as with all others, is a continuous work in progress open to ANY wikipedia editor who so chooses to participate. You are not the gatekeeper to this article (and yes - going through and cleaning out additions to an article because you personally do not like them is gatekeeping). You do not sit at the head of a council that must approve each and every little change to this article and you do not have the right to arbitrarily censor out or reject changes that you do not like, especially when they are intended to remove NPOV problems in the article - a policy that I suggest you review. Nor does there seem to be any overwhelming "consensus" problem with anything I've done other than the fact that it evidently does not meet the consensus of one single person: you. It is not "controversial" to add solid factual information (e.g. the role of the nazi volksgemeinschaft principle, which was central to their ideology's view of the state-citizen relationship). Nor is it "controversial" to remove a very clear and blatant POV statement disguised in the article text (except, perhaps, to the person pushing that POV). Nor is it "controversial" to make a polite, plainly stated suggestion on the talk page that greater care be exercised in using the terms marxist, socialist, and communist as if they were interchangable. If you disagree with any particular aspect of these changes by all means discuss them [to user:El_C]

• 03:02, February 15, 2005 [302] If you find a source is lacking in an article and want to make an issue of it the very first thing you should do is attempt to find one yourself!

• 03:36, March 14, 2005 [303] ES removed unsourced POV. We went over this one on the NC article. Provide a legitimate source, Will

• 17:00, May 3, 2005 [304] Seeing as you are the one in favor of including a civil rights movement reference, would not the burden of proof fall on you to demonstrate that one or more of these groups do espouse opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and not the other way around?

• 17:30, May 8, 2005 [305] When somebody makes a unilateral change like that it is incumbent upon them to justify it and make a solid case for doing so...

• 19:37, May 26, 2005 [306] Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough. Once again, you are free to add other material if you wish. My point is don't complain if you are unwilling to do the work.

• 20:14, May 26, 2005 [307] Edits are still strictly voluntary. While balance is desirable (and again I'm fully supportive of adding a counterbalancing history of the paper etc. at the top), time and interest is also prohibitive. You contribute what you can when you can, and seeing as others all have the freedom to contribute as well, there's no basis in complaining about the absence of something unless you are willing to add it yourself.

• 21:43, May 27, 2005 [308] ALL citations and sources are fair game for challenge, and when you purport your own personal expertise as a source, challenging you becomes a permissible option.

• 04:47, May 28, 2005 [309] A source that is suspect is no basis for a change even if it is the only source out there. Otherwise you open a whole pandora's box of problems. I suppose if you looked hard enough you could find some kooky internet site claiming that George Bush kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and using your same methodology, it could be included since it is the "best available source" on Bush and the Lindbergh baby and since there's probably not anything out there challenging it. But that, of course, would be absurd, as is taking any source simply because its the "best (read: only) available source" out there, especially when the claim is inherently speculative and the source is highly controversial and suspect...as happens to be the case with the Austin Chronicle. Now, as for the Austin Chronicle itself, I will continue to reference their rabid behavior as I see fit (rabid, as used here, being defined as "raging, zealous, fanatical" per American Heritage Dictionary rather than its other definition of having the disease rabies). If you would like examples please see my previous post on the subject where I listed several examples of raging, zealous, and fanatical attacks made on republicans and conservatives throughout their article.

• 22:12, June 3, 2005 [310] It's not a matter of the detail's usefulness, Katefan, but rather sourcing the sentence you and willmcw complained about. You can't complain about the absence of a source then whine when one when it is added.

• 20:58, June 8, 2005 [311]

• 08:33, June 14, 2005 [312] Virtually all of that paragraph is unsourced in its present form. Focus on getting better sources in general before worrying about specifics.

• 09:04, June 14, 2005 [313]As will I, and right now I see no merit in removing standard deviations to replace them with an unsourced less specific phrasing on the basis of "sources" when the larger paragraph itself suffers from a greater deficit in that regard.

• 07:36, June 23, 2005 [314] This sentence seems POV - sources on Foner's condemnation?

• 19:08, July 3, 2005 [315] No will. Per wikipedia's source citation policies and common knowledge guidelines, the onus is on the editor to simply provide valid sources demonstrating information validity where appropriate and when possible. There is no "policy" requiring me to justify my edits to your arbitrarily applied standards and demands of citation that exceed anything demanded of me by wikipedia.

• 17:56, July 24, 2005 [316] Criticisms will not be censored where they are sourced, balanced, factually portrayed, and in general keeping with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Many of the "criticisms" you have added, however, are unrelated to the topic of this article, are portrayed in an unbalanced POV manner, or constitute original research. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia for POV reasons or to prove a point. WP:POINT. Thank you.

• 18:00, July 25, 2005 [317] This is original research of Rothbard material & critics are unnamed. Please reword and justify on the talk page with more appropriate sourcing before adding

• 18:17, October 7, 2005 [318] Gorgonzilla - It's fine to dispute the neutrality of the text, but please do not mass-delete multiple paragraphs of text by dismissing them all as POV. Per wikipedia's style guides, the solution is to add to the text and clean up its language - not wipe it clean.

• 23:21, October 8, 2005 [319] rv. mass deletion - find sources where necessary, but don't use this as an excuse to wipe an article clean (& reverts)

• 23:23, October 8, 2005 [320] I restored the aforementioned material for the time being until a proper replacement or sourcing of its text is developed. It's good to have sources, but (1) anon edits are NOT inherently bad and (2) a deficit of sources is not a valid excuse to wipe out an entire article.

• 23:39, October 8, 2005 [321]

Removal or insertion of epithets

Rangerdude has either added or removed epithets or characterizations from citations throughout his editing career at Wikipedia. Either way he always has a policy to cite. Below is only a brief selection of his arguments on either side of the issue. I have added my own notations to these diffs to indicate whether he was arguing for or against the epithet. I assert that a review of Rangerdude's edits show a practice of expedient, aggressive wikilawyering with the intent to promote a particular POV.

• 05:33, January 14, 2005 [322] If somebody was indeed communist (e.g. the sandinistas were communists) identify them as that once but anything else is redundant and leads to a POV. [in favor of an epithet]

• 07:33, January 28, 2005 [323] They should accordingly be identified as a liberal organization, just as you would have every right to identify a link from the Heritage Foundation as conservative or right wing. There's no need to hide their political perspectives and it deceived the reader if we do. [in favor of an epithet]

• 23:39, February 4, 2005 [324] And pejorative terms tend to indicate POV. This is not an article from the socialist POV. It is an article from a _neutral_ POV. Since the reference is to what could be otherwise described as corporate business or large corporations in neutral language, this link should be changed. [opposed to an epitethet]

• 20:05, May 26, 2005 [325] #I disagree that "unapologetic" is wordy on account of it adding just one single word to a relatively simple sentence. As to being redundant, it's a minor one at best and perfectly tolerable since it is accurate and does not substantially lengthen the article. Characterizing a person's remarks when they undeniably meet the characterization given is no vice. [in favor of an epithet]

• 22:14, May 26, 2005 [326] I see no problem in using that source so long as the disclaimer is also noted in the sentence that quotes from it. [in favor of an epithet]

• 00:51, May 27, 2005 [327] Using your same standard, I might as well go around Wikipedia looking for every single article that quotes anything from the Houston Chronicle and add two sentences to it about how the Chronicle's objectivity on everything is suspect due to their light rail memo scandal. [opposed to an epithet]

• 02:06, May 27, 2005 [328] I disagree. It would be adding criticisms of critics if the Austin Chronicle article attacked Texas Media Watch for its characterization of the rail memo. Instead this is an unrelated blanket attack on Texas Media Watch with absolutely no relevant connection to the Houston Chronicle story. Criticism of critics in the neo-confederate article all pertained directly to the topic of neo-confederate and the allegations made within it. This does not. [opposed to an epithet]

• 18:35, May 27, 2005 [329] I do not see how a one-line descriptive sentence is wordy, nor inaccurate. [in favor of an epithet]

• 17:01, May 28, 2005 [330] "Declined" still seems to imply an obligation in less it is stated that what they declined was not any statutory requirement but the Chronicle's belief that they should be require to disclose the donors. The problem is with the whole way this sentence has been phrased because it treats TTM as if they intentionally chose not to do something they should've done. But the law simply does not oblige them to do that. In fact there isn't even a mechanism or a disclosure form under Texas state law that permits them to disclose their finances if they wanted to. [opposed to an epithet]

• 21:49, June 14, 2005 [331] revert pejorative "gossip columnist" reference. Also, Houston Press's status as being a "free paper" has no bearing on whether or not the betting game occurs & is ad hominem. [opposed to an epithet]

• 19:17, July 2, 2005 [332] ES Revert edits by Willmcw to previous version by Rangerdude. Von Mises is not the only critic, "non-notable" sources were legit & published, "neo-confederate" description used by Willmcw was POV added self-styled [in favor of an epithet]

• 03:04, July 3, 2005 [333] rem. anonymous and off topic pejorative characterization per WP:NPOV [opposed to an epithet]

• 03:25, July 4, 2005 [334] rem. pejorative characterization that is not germane to the article subject [opposed to an epithet]

• 00:39, July 5, 2005 [335] Rem. POV material. If conservative characterizations of SPLC are inappropriate outside of their article, then so are liberal characterizations of LVM [opposed to an epithet]

• 16:46, October 4, 2005 [336] rv. irrelevant material w/ pejorative intent (& reverted several times)

• 03:01, October 5, 2005 [337] [added a self-styled] [in favor of an epithet]

• 03:35, October 5, 2005 [338] rv. Sebesta self-quote non-neutrality not established. Also - don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point WP:POINT [in favor of an epithet]

• 15:12, October 5, 2005 [339] restore info about credentials, rem. selectively presented POV fact per WP:NPOV *** [in favor of an epithet]

Right wing/left wing vs conservative/liberal

Rangerdude contends that I have engaged in POV pushing by once removing the word "leftist" from an article that he had just added it to. On the other hand, he has made a practice of changing "rightist" or "right-wing" to "conservative" in order to be "NPOV". If "rightist" and "leftist" are POV terms then why has he added "leftist" to articles so often, while removing "rightist"? This is a partial list:

• 20:21, January 3, 2005 [340] ES added material, removed favorable POV on Daily Kos - added text left wing blog sites

• 23:14, May 30, 2005 [341] the leftist political magazine The Nation.

• 16:38, May 31, 2005 [342] NPOV edit - replaced pejorative and euphemism terms with more neutral and comparable "conservative" and "liberal"

• 22:24, June 17, 2005 [343] Considering that this description, save my change of "right wing" to the more NPOV "conservative," predates any edit I've made to this article...

• 04:01, June 18, 2005 [344]
• Since you edited the line, I assume you know who these critics are. Specifically, of the persons who make the criticism above, which ones are "conservative" rather than "right-wing"? Would a "responsible editor" make that change blindly? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• My edit was a minor NPOV change between two synonymous words, the latter being more neutral than the former. Using that change as a basis for removing the line, which you have now inadvertantly admitted to doing by attributing your action to my NPOV edit of the line, is not only irresponsible - it's borderline vandalism. If you have legitimate cause to doubt that conservatives criticize Foner's leftist politics please state it. Otherwise please refrain from deconstructing wikipedia. Rangerdude 04:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 08:02, July 6, 2005 [345] ES NPOV [changed "right-wing" to "conservative"]

• 19:51, August 7, 2005 [346] leftist activist [[Chip Berlet]

• 16:42, October 2, 2005 [347] the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. (RD twice reverted my removal of the characterization)

• 02:53, October 4, 2005 [348] ES wikify [changed "right-wing" to "conservative"]

• 13:38, October 4, 2005 [349] ES rv POV edit [changed "right-wing" to "conservative"]

Common knowledge

Rangerdude has abused the Wikipedia:Common knowledge policy by invoking it, explicitly or implicitly, in political or obscure historical contexts. To assert that a particular view of race relation in mid-19th century mid-west America is "common knowledge", and thus requires no sources, is patently absurd. In the cases below he defends his own unsourced material by invoking the policy, or hypocritically refuses to accept common knowledge in the case of "textbook" history. In addition, he has used the policy to justify repeating criticisms in introductory sentences, thus doubling the criticisms of subjects and in some cases introducing criticisms in summaries that were not supported in the text.

• 03:42, 9 Jan 2005 [350] First, the claim that they're commonly used in anonymous "history textbooks" is just that - a claim. I'll again note that this has not been my general experience, at least with the better quality textbooks. Perhaps it is different for some generic "7th grade U.S. History" book, but I do not consider that high enough quality anyway for use as source material on an article of this type. Needless to say, whether they are used or not elsewhere they are still POV terms and in the interest of the NPOV guidelines should be avoided in most contexts except for those that specifically attribute the POV term to a historical person who is making a POV statement or, in some cases, a recognized expert (though I am also leary of excesses in that latter category, see appeal to authority).

• 01:03, February 12, 2005 [351] As to critics being "shown to exist" your selective stringency is indeed kicking in again. Your "standard" - if it could even be called that - for showing something to exist is being able to dig it up on google, which for purposes of citations is a laughable methodology. ... And quite frankly if you don't know that the SCV and other UDC chapters were upset at McPherson's quote, then you don't know anything about the SCV or UDC and thus you are unqualified to be writing encyclopedia articles about them.

• 02:13, February 15, 2005 [352] One does not need a source to state that Ronald Reagan was a conservative, that Lyndon Johnson was a liberal, that Henry Wallace was a socialist, or that Eric Foner is a marxist. It is common knowledge to anybody possessing even the slightest familiarity with any of these figures.

• 02:57, February 16, 2005 [353] It's a general statement about the Negrophobia movement. The midwest is where the movement that is known to historians as Negrophobia was strongest (specifically the worst Black Codes were in Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana), though it did spread elsewhere in the north. If you knew anything about the topic of this article you would recognize that as a simple fact about the movement, undisputed by any historian of the era.

• 15:48, May 27, 2005 [354] ES - common knowledge or not, willmcw needs a source

• 22:23, June 2, 2005 [355] If you'd like a source, check any of the TTM or Houston Review links and the Houston Press link on the memo story's relation to the Chronicle's position. All three abound throughout the story. The statement is sufficiently obvious, however, to stand on its own right as both the chronicle editorials and the memo espouse the same position on rail of promoting it. To state that they share this in common is not deductive but rather descriptive. Or do you deny that the memo promoted rail?

• 17:53, June 18, 2005 [356] A critique of Foner's well known liberal politics very reasonably falls under Wikipedia:Common_knowledge which does indeed _encourage_ the finding of sources yet explicitly states "However, there are some claims that many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact, without citing any outside sources."

• 18:55, July 3, 2005 [357] restore unjustified deletion. Material discussed here is a factual summary & is not among the WP common knowledge cases requiring prof. help

• 18:05, July 23, 2005 [358] Per Wikipedia:Common Knowledge summaries are acceptable when...

• 18:35, 23 July 2005 [359] [Claimed in a summary a "race card" criticism that was not supported, and used "Common knowledge" as his reason.]

• 19:05, July 31, 2005 [360] Please note that Wikipedia:Common_knowledge permits summaries and overview sentences when followed by either "links to more detailed articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, or...a citation to a reliable secondary source."

Response to Rangerdude

I edit with many editors who have special interests that they are promoting or denigrating, in articles like New Zealand National Front, Eugenics, Aesthetic Realism, Alt.romath, Biff Rose, Bill White (neo-Nazi), Nathan Braun, NAMBLA, History of Saturday Night Live (2000-2005), Quasiturbine, Lyndon LaRouche, The Bishop's School (California), etc. Though I may disagree with their particular POV, my aim is always to see that the articles are NPOV and verifiable, not to punish them for disagreeing with me. Of all the passionate editors whom I've run into, only Rangerdude has initiated formal complaints against me.

Wikistalking

Harassing behavior, including what has become known as "wikistalking", has no place in Wikipedia. I have never wikistalked or harassed any editor. I do review the edits of many editors, including Rangderdude's, because I have seen repeated problems with their work. However I always try to address the edit, never the editor.

Whenever I find a problem edit, my routine response is to check the editor's contribution list. 68.92.217.49 (talk · contribs) showed up on my watchlist on 02:32, December 26, 2004 when he edited Morris Dees with this edit summary:NPOV edits, unsourced claim corrections. Instead I found a POV edit and a new unsourced claim. I checked other edits by the same or related IPs and saw the editor strongly promoting a particular viewpoint. Checking his contribution list I was very concerned with this pair of edits, 05:16, December 25, 2004, which took a Southern Civil War guerilla who had been previously described as a terrorist and turned him into a hero. Even without knowing much about the exact topic it was obvious that the editor was making a very POV edit.[I have been assured by Rangerdude that the second edit was not made by him.] Starting here,09:05, December 16, 2004, he added more than 700-words of negative material to what had been a 96-word, NPOV stub on Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits. A large part of Rangerdude's editing is in a small scope of topics, chiefly a few related fields: Antebellum South/American Civil War, Modern South/Neo-confederate movement, and Houston politics/The Houston Chronicle. With that narrow focus the articles that he edits are mostly interlinked. Very often I'd check an article because he had just added a link to an article on my watchlist. Many of the articles are about obscure topics and I edited them reluctantly, only because there was no one else to around to help balance the POV and double check the facts.

Wikistalking requires a motive of harassment. I have never sought to harass Rangerdude. I have never made a personal attack on him, I have never made an edit just to annoy him, and every edit that I have made has been an attempt to improve the project. Though he claims that I gang up with others against him, I had little or no participation in three of his major editing conflicts: Jim Robinson/Free Republic, Jesus(the AD/CE matter), and Nazism/Socialism. If I'd had an interest in harassing him those would have been fine opportunities to do so, but I didn't. Nor have I gone around fomenting opposition to him. On the other hand, Rangerdude has followed me to several editing conflicts, such as Ludwig von Mises Institute, and has openly stirred up activity against me.

Back in June 2005, when he first broadcast his charge against me, I compiled a list of the 203 articles that Rangerdude had contributed to as of 04:33 (UTC), Jun 15, 2005. Of those, there were 59 that we have both contributed to. Of those, he contributed first to 27 of them, I contributed first to 19 of them, and on 13 my only editing was to the category (mostly one small recategorization effort). Now Rangerdude says that I have Wikistalked him to 43 articles. "Kate's tool" reports that he has edited 573 distinct pages. If I have been wikistalking him, apparently I have done a poor job of following him to "every article he edits", as he's said I've done. Rangerdue made the accusation in my RfA in July and three editors, with whom I've had little or no interaction, volunteered that they had investigated and found the charge untrue. [361][362][363] No responsible user or group has ever told me, publicly or privately, that I have wikistalked Rangerdude (or anyone else).

I consider the "wikistalking" charge to be a spurious personal attack by Rangerdude intended to remove me from editing articles that he works on. Reviewing the edits of others, without harassment, is not wikistalking. It is the backbone of the open editing system.

Houston Chronicle mediation

I had been an active editor of Houston Chronicle leading up to KateFan04's request for mediation. The mediator invited me to join the mediation.[364] When I attempted to do so, Rangerdude insisted on forcing me out. When the mediator later asked me to withdraw I did so immediately. Rangerdude also stopped participating immediately, suddenly uninterested in reaching consensus on the article, and stopped editng the article. Rangerdude has participated in or called for a number of mediations and requests for comment, but they seem more like attacks on editors than attempts at better articles. (see above, Abuse of Process).

David Duke/Ludwig von Mises Institute

I plead guilty to a minor and brief violation of WP:POINT.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a principal critics of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The editors of the Institute article had generally agreed to include some criciticism from the Center, which at the relevant moment was only one short sentence. Some editors wanted to add as many counter-criticims of the Center as possible, including a relatively long criticism from David Horowitz, who has no affiliation with the Institute, and whose criticism did not mention the Institute or "neo-confederates". I was protesting that he was irrelevant to the article and that the counter criticism was too long. So I put in David Duke's criticism of the Center to prove that point.[365] Though pointed, it was not irrelevant as Duke is a prominent Neo-Confederate and racist, and those were issues in the discussion. One hour and twenty minutes later the Duke citation was removed, and shortly after that the Horowitz citation was removed, by a different editor. Point made, problem solved. We ultimately found counter-criticisms of the Center made by people directly connected to the Institute to take their place, which made for a better article. A successful editing outcome despite a contentious editing atmosphere.

Nonetheless, Rangerdude has repeated the Duke story numerous times to show what a horrible editor I am. Perhaps that was the correct punishment for my transgression. I believe that I have paid my debt to Wikipedia for that crime and request that the accusations now stop. I note that he has now posted reference to it on at least 10 pages, [366], accounting for about 9% of all links to David Duke.

Biting the newcomers

Rangerdude has repeatedly complained that I frequently "bite the newcomers".[367][368][369][370][371][372] Far from biting newcomers, I welcome many of them, offer help, or just fix their edits without comment. The "newcomers" whom I was supposedly "biting" were sock puppets of abusive editors. Rangerdude's intervention in those cases was disruptive. I request that he either provide the evidence of it here or stop making this allegation.

Response to Nobs01

Nobs01 (talk · contribs) hasn't clearly presented an allegation. A major source for the Harry Dexter White article is a government report written chiefly by one man. An assertion in the article was sourced to a new paper written by the same man, delivered to a symposion of a Holocaust denial group. My argument was that if we have the assertion, we should include the citatation showing where the paper was delivered. The general consensus decided that links to the IHR are too odious too include in any article. I think we managed to clear out the material sourced from that paper.

Response to Herschelkrustofsky

Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) alleges that my removal of info from European classical music was an instance of Wikistalking. After HK's second arbitration case I did indeed backtrack through his previous edits across a variety of fields and removed instances of edits that promoted LaRouche, or his POV, or that used LaRouche sources. In particular, LaRouche has a number of strongly-held, unusual theories about music. (LaRouche followers have picketed Vivaldi concerts, for example, and LaRouche tried to get a law passed in Italy to require orchestras to change their tuning.) Friedrich Schiller, an 18th century German poet, is one of the principal heroes of the LaRouche movement, whose chief cultural organization is named the "Schiller Institute". I removed that reference and HK reverted the removal twice, adding an untrue negative personal remark about my knowledge of music. [373][374] After that there was a discussion with other editors on the talk page and we agreed to keep the Schiller reference. I've respected that consensus in the matter. HK does not contest the dozens of other reversions of his LaRouche promoting edits that I removed.

HK recently added information to two articles ([375][376]) to support an element of the LaRouche world view, which believes that a Venetian oligarchy has been the leading malevolent force in the world for the past several hundred years. user:Cognition, a different LaRouche usernames, recently added derogatory information about Michael Ledeen immediately after a LaRouche publication ran a hit piece on Ledeen. [377] I am not ashamed of reviewing the edits of LaRouche accounts to make sure they are reasonable, and consider it one of the services that I do for Wikipedia. Even so, I have never sought to harass HK or any of the other LaRouche accounts.

HK alleges that simply assembling evidence in an active ArbCom case is an example of wikistalking. In that instance, the ArbCom case touched on HK's relentless insertion of LaRouche material and POV into articles, behavior that was prohibited by the first HK arbitration. Preparation of the list was a single event. The file was chiefly a compilation of the LaRouche movement's interests, similar to User:Silsor/Neo-nazi watchlist, and used for the same reason. (No other comparison between HK and neo-nazis is intended).

Response to Nskinsella

The saga of this user and his biography, Nskinsella (talk · contribs) and Stephan Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is complicated. Interested persons should look elsewhere for a full explanation.

I request that Nskinsella stop making personal attacks. Ever since he started editing here this user has been making puerile personal attacks against me, here and on his website.[378] He has decided to call me "Willow", apparently as a derogatory nickname, and continues despite requests to stop. He repeatedly called me a "wikinerd",[379] and then repeatedly tried to create an article defining a "Wikinerd" as a "pejorative slang term used to describe very active Wikipedia editors." In other personal comments he has called me "idiot" [380], "moron"[381], and recently "shipdit" [382].

Evidence from Nskinsella

None of which gainsays my comments explaining how Mr. W here has repeatedly wikistalked me and tried to nitpick and push things in a lefty or biased direction whenever he can, all the while feigning aloof objecivity. Mr. W requests that I stop making personal attacks? I am not. He does not like my "puerile" behavior? Well, there are different senses of levity out there. I request he stop following me around and making biased, ridiculous changes to my edits. For example, as I noted below, Mr. W has:

• tried to get my own entry deleted twice. The second time, he voted to delete me on alleged grounds of non-notability while at the same time voting to keep an entry of similar notability (and arguing that the other subject's homosexuality--or having "come out" about it, I suppose?--made him notable!--is it Wikipedia policy to reward gays who "come out" and to "punish" those who do not?); when I noted this inconsistency he offered to change his vote on the other entry if I would just vote "delete" on my own entry.
• repeated over and again with no grounds (for it is untrue) that I put up or caused someone to put up my own entry.
• Also, during that debate, he kept calling my entry a copyright violation, even though it was taken from material on my own site that I gave consent to. I believe he was basically trying to harass me so as to pressure me to adopt the GNU type license on my own website.
• On the Intellectual Property entry, he kept trying to insist that mention of my own anti-IP article on the IP entry must be followed by a snide comment stating that the article "was copyrighted" by the publisher -- he kept trying to add a comment to the effect that "though the author opposes IP, the article is copyrighted." This was clearly an attempt to make some snide, non-neutral critique of or comment on the article, which was completely out of place, uncalled for, non-sensical, and unjustified
• On the entry for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, after he or someone else added on the Mises entry the SPLC critique and charges of racism etc., and I put up some comments by Horowitz that showed that some people believe SPLC exaggerates sometimes--he added to it the David Duke comment, in yet another transparent effort to prop up the SPLC critique. Yet more bias and non-neutrality: he is faux-"defending" the Mises Institute with a quote from white supremacist David Duke, all the while feigning innocence and pretending to be objective.
• He also claimed that I was an employee of the Mises Institute--which is simply false. He also made some snide comment about his not being biased because he is not in the pay of the Mises Institute.

Will (can I call you that? I note others have, and you don't seem to object to that--in this case, I'll just assume Will is actually your name and Willmcw is some kind of abbreviation for it) -- if I am wrong about the above things, why don't you explain why or how? Or, at the very least, deny them--? If I have called you "willow" ... is this some kind of rebuttal to my substantive comments above? You seem to me to simply keep ignoring them. The David Duke incident was blatant, and I think anyone can see it. As was the snide, POV comment you kept adding after the link to my anti-IP article. Why don't you just admit your bias, and pledge to keep it out of your editing from now on, and to stop wikistalking RangerDude and other? Wouldn't this be the simplest solution? Or can you with a straight face deny the inappropriatness of some of your actions I noted above? NSKinsella (please call me "Rothbardmxyzptlk" on Thursdays, "Hoppemxyzptlk" on Fridays, "Willow" on Saturdays, and "jumasesad" on other days) 04:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Nobs01

12 August

• 00:22
  • add link to controversial site [383] to "see Kubek's affilation" and "indicate just whose idea this is" when the editor of a U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report was presented [384]

Statement by User:Nobs01

It was my understanding that links to the controversial ihr site were to be deleted on sight, and I even inquired as such [385].

Statement by User:Nobs01 on Texas Media Watch

See [386] and [387] for discussion on the attack on a non-profit organization with one employee.

Evidence presented by User:TenOfAllTrades

I have run into User:Rangerdude directly on a couple of occasions, as well as watched him argue with, harass, and annoy many of our contributors.

Jim Robinson

My first encounter was on Talk:Jim Robinson; I was brought there by a post on RfC. One editor (User:Jonathan Christensen) believed that Jim Robinson should be merged to Free Republic; two others (including Rangerdude) felt that Jim Robinson should not be merged. The attempted merger had been reverted, and there had been a few snippy remarks on Talk:Jim Robinson at the time the RfC was filed: [388].

• 19:46 14 April (UTC) Katefan0 asks involved parties to calm down; notes her support for redirect as a reasonable compromise.
• 06:22 15 April (UTC) Discussion of RfC. Katefan0 notes that the issue is stalemated on whether the articles should be merged.

• 06:45 16 April (UTC): Jonathan Christensen nominates Jim Robinson for deletion; requests consensus to merge. (See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim Robinson.)
• 04:45 17 April (UTC): Rangerdude notes that he believes that using VfD to determine consensus on article merger is an inappropriate use of VfD and a violation of Wikipedia policy.
• 19:40 30 April (UTC) Tony Sidaway closes the VfD as a 'merge and redirect to Free Republic'. (Final count was 9 votes to merge and redirect, 3 votes to keep.)

• 19:40 30 April (UTC): Rangerdude lodges complaint about use of VfD and requests that the decision be revisited.
• Rangerdude argues extensively with Tony Sidaway and Katefan0 about implementation of the consensus achieved at VfD. A second RfC is filed; Rangerdude then argues with me (TenOfAllTrades) and Willmcw who arrive at the page and try to explain how the VfD consensus was clear on the fate of the article.
• Rangerdude nominated Jim Robinson for undeletion, even though the article was not deleted.
• Rangerdude's request is turned down. Unfortunately, the debate at VfU is gone from the history of that page; it clearly showed how argumentative Rangerdude was, and how he refused to abide by consensus.

The current version of Talk:Jim Robinson ([389]) and the discussion there shows that Rangerdude is capable of arguing ad infinitum about procedural minutiae, instead of getting on with writing an encyclopedia. I suspect that it may have been from this encounter with Willmcw that Rangerdude began his stalking.

Thomas Woods

My second encounter with Rangerdude was on Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I arrived there via a request at the Help Desk; Katefan0 was asking whether or not WP:CITE was official policy because an unnamed user was arguing (correctly) that it was only a guideline, and (incorrectly) that unreferenced assertions should remain in an article. I was later unsurprised to discover that it was Rangerdude questioning this policy.

8 October

• 19:36 UTC: Willmcw opens Talk:Thomas Woods; notes that much of the material is unsourced.
• 23:08 UTC: Willmcw removes unsourced content from Thomas Woods.
• 23:14 UTC: Willmcw reports on the talk page that he has removed the unsourced content from the article; asks for sources and external links to rebuild article.
• 23:21 UTC: Rangerdude appears at Thomas Woods for the first time, and reverts Willmcw's edit. amended 03:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• A minor revert war follows (See the article history).

8 October to 11 October

• A lengthy discussion follows on Talk:Thomas Woods (The most recent version version is here) where Rangerdude announces that WP:CITE is merely a guideline and WP:NPOV a policy, and that therefore Willmcw should not have removed the unsourced material. When informed that WP:V and WP:NOR are also official policy, Rangerdude changes tack, and insists that Willmcw has done something terribly wrong in only quoting part of the material he removed back on the Talk page of the article for further discussion.
• 3:44 August 8 (UTC): Willmcw restores a paragraph of removed material to the article after locating a source.

• 06:45 October 11 (UTC): Rangerdude accuses Willmcw of stalking him.

11 October

• 15:51 UTC: I (TenOfAllTrades) copy all of the deleted text to the article's talk page. I ask why Rangerdude didn't just do it himself, rather than harassing Willmcw for three days.

I note that Rangerdude showed up at Thomas Woods immediately after Willmcw–a bare thirteen minutes later!–and immediately began reverting. Rangerdude then accused Willmcw of stalking him, which seems a tad absurd. The pattern of harassment is clear:

1. Willmcw edited a page.
2. Rangerdude reverted Willmcw immediately, and began to argue on the article talk page.
3. Willmcw added properly sourced information back to the article—he located the source himself; he is the last person to have made any substantive edits to that article.

#Rangerdude has made no attempt to improve the article or contribute to its content; he has only edit warred with Willmcw.

Rangerdude seeks to win arguments not through achieving consensus but through burying opponents in wikilawyering, circuitous argument, accusations of stalking, and through wearing them down by attrition. He is a capable writer, but seems to lack the willingness to work within our consensus-driven framework. If he will not cease his personal attacks on SlimVirgin, Willmcw, and anyone else he has accused of stalking, he will have no place here on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC), amended 03:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ye gods—my face is red. Rangerdude actually was the creator of this article; I'm not sure how I missed that before. Regardless, Rangerdude hadn't touched the article after its creation as a stub in March of this year: [390]. I note that the version to which Willmcw reverted ([391]) contained significantly more information than Rangerdude's original version, and indeed still retained all of Rangerdude's original content. If Willmcw was stalking Rangerdude, he was being singularly ineffectual. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly Rangerdude and I have different interpretations of these events; I encourage the Arbitration Committee to read the talk pages in question and draw their own conclusions about his...level of agreeableness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Herschelkrustofsky

Regarding SlimVirgin

I can substantiate Rangerdude's charge that SlimVirgin acts belligerently toward other editors. SlimVirgin is prone to biting the newcomers if she sees them as potential opponents on articles where she is attempting to impose her POV.

27 November - 1 December

• Revision as of 04:41, 27 November 2005 (diff)
  • In Animal rights, an article where SlimVirgin is trying to impose her POV, a Request for Comment is filed by User:FuelWagon. A number of comments are posted on the talk page, to which SlimVirgin responds with personal attacks against all concerned.

• Revision as of 01:25, 29 November 2005 (diff)
  • SlimVirgin says of new editors responding to the RfC, of which there are now several, "I would ask that people who want to get involved in editing this do some research into animal rights, rather than just turning up to cause a problem."

• Revision as of 02:05, 29 November 2005 (diff)
  • In this post by User:Ed Poor, he warns her to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks, after striking out the words you know nothing about animal rights, which she had just addressed to FuelWagon.

• Revision as of 23:27, 1 December 2005 (diff)
  • SlimVirgin makes another round of personal attacks.

older examples

• Revision of 18:46, 4 September 2005 (diff)
  • SlimVirgin threatens Zirkon with banning, because she asserts that he is taking a sarcastic and unhelpful tone in a discussion with SlimVirgin's close POV ally, Cberlet. An examination of the back-and-forth suggests to me that Zirkon was remarkably restrained, considering the frequent violations of Wikiquette by Cberlet. The fact that she did not similarly admonish Cberlet (and she has had hundreds of opportunities to do so,) suggests to me that she enforces Wikipedia policy guidelines rather selectively, as suits her POV agenda.

• Revision of 06:34, 5 August 2005 (diff)
  • In a gratuitous gesture of hostility toward another new user, SlimVirgin added [[Ignorance]] to the list of "areas of expertise" on the user page of User:Cognition. In her response below, she says she was merely reverting an edit because "...[s]everal editors and admins had been reverting Cognition's user page because it contained personal attacks." This is disingenuous. It is abundantly clear that my edit removed a personal attack, and her edit put it back. SlimVirgin is a veteran of many edit wars, and for her to ask us to believe that she sort of unconsciously reverted a page without reading what was on it, is a bit much. She must be held accountable for this and other edits.

• Revision of 23:47, 4 January 2005
  • In the case of User:Daniel Brandt, SlimVirgin had made disparaging comments about Daniel Brandt in this diff At that time, he was not yet a Wikipedia editor, and she was denouncing him because he is a published critic of Chip Berlet, who on Wikipedia is her close POV ally Cberlet. When Brandt became a Wikipedia editor, she evidently immediately authored an article about him, at which he took offense. The details are unknown to me, because the article has now been deleted. Brandt has apparently left Wikipedia, leaving this open letter in which he discusses the incident.

Regarding Willmcw

POV pushing

Willmcw is often a stickler for documentation, to the point of nit-picking, when he is engaged in Wikistalking and other forms of harassment. However, when an edit is consonant with his POV, he is lenient to the point of absurdity. I provide examples from both extremes of this double standard:

• Revision as of 23:34, 20 October 2005 (diff)
  • Willmcw requests documentation for a number of undisputed and non-controversial references (see diff) to musical activities of Louis Farrakhan

27-28 November

• Revision as of 23:38, 27 November 2005 (diff)
  • User:Cognition reverts anonymous edits to National Caucus of Labor Committees, which are POV to the point of being inflammatory, and undocumented

• Revision as of 00:43, 28 November 2005 (diff)
  • Willmcw reverts to anon version

• Revision as of 03:09, 28 November 2005 (diff)
  • Cognition reverts again, with memo, "Willmcw, the changes in question were added by an anonymous passerby who did not provide citations or discuss the additions on the Talk page. Please use the Talk page before adding unverified material"

• Revision as of 21:10, 28 November 2005 (diff)
  • Willmcw reverts again to anon version

• Revision as of 21:14, 28 November 2005 (diff)
  • On talk page, Willmcw posts "The new version seems pretty solid to me."

Mahathir bin Mohamad

In disputes concerning this article, Willmcw displayed both sides of his double standard:

• Revision as of 22:34, 23 August 2005 (diff)
  • Willmcw asks for source documentation for views I express on the talk page that are favorable to Mahathir

• Revision as of 22:52, 10 December 2005 (diff)
  • Willmcw re-inserts unsourced criticism of Mahathir in introduction to the article

Wikistalking

I am presenting evidence concerning Willmcw's Wikistalking. During an earlier ArbCom case, Willmcw prepared a list of every article ever edited by myself and two other editors, all of whom were accused of being "LaRouche editors." The majority of the articles on the list were ones that I had edited. The list was not presented as evidence, but Willmcw refers to it in this diff:22:51, 13 February 2005, arguing that I had inserted LaRouche POV in virtually every article.

I urge members of the ArbCom to carefully study Willmcw's list, because what it really demonstrates is a pathological case of the Wikistalking mentality. In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary. At best, a Google search might turn up pages in which the word "LaRouche" and the subject of the article both appear. In many cases, there isn't even that sort of tenuous connection.

As a further indication of the problem, consider this diff:09:00, 23 January 2005 in which Willmcw deleted material from European classical music, refering to it on the talk page (diff:09:04, 23 January 2005) as "LaRouche-cruft." His deletion was promptly overruled by other editors (fortunately, there are many committed editors monitoring European classical music.) Willmcw had never shown an interest in this article before, and he displayed his lack of knowledge about classical music later that same day (diff:20:03, 23 January 2005) by deleting my reference to Beethoven's setting of Friedrich Schiller's "Ode to Joy," with the edit memo, "Schiller didn't write any music." The "Ode to Joy" is in fact a poem, set to music by Beethoven, a fact known to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of classical music.

I think the above example is significant, because it illustrates the fact that Will's edits were not a function of POV - arguably, he didn't know enough about classical music to possess a POV. They were also not about LaRouche, which is generally the cover story Will used in this stalking behavior. The classical music edits are so petty and dilletantish that they can only be explained as personal animosity, and constitute the sort of behavior that is explicitly prohibited under Wikipedia:Harassment.

In Willmcw's response above, he asserts that his stalking behavior, and specificly the incidents cited at European classical music, did not commence until after the second LaRouche arbitration case had concluded; this would seem to be an attempt to use that case to justify the behavior. However, the incidents at European classical music took place on January 23 -- the second LaRouche case was not opened until January 25.

Lest anyone think that Willmcw may have modified his stalking behavior since January of 2005, I submit a more recent example: in this diff: 21:01, 7 November 2005, Willmcw objects to the use of the word "remarkable" in my edit from the previous day, in which I add a reference to James Fennimore Cooper's novel, The Bravo, to the section entitled "Venice in culture, the arts, and fiction" in the article on Venice. Willmcw had, of course, shown no previous interest in this article. His edit was promptly reverted by User:Bill Thayer, who has made over 30 edits to this article. Then, on the talk page (diff: 00:23, 8 November 2005,) Willmcw seems to theorize that Cooper's novel was written as part of a conspiracy, presumably retroactive, by Lyndon LaRouche. When I asked on the talk page whether Willmcw had read The Bravo, he replied that he had read a plot summary on a website. --HK 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Revision as of 23:14, 17 December 2005 (diff) and 23:15, 17 December 2005(diff)
  • Willmcw reverts my edit to article Austerity because it includes the term "physical economy," which he claims is a "LaRouche term." Here is a small selection ([392][393][394][395][396][397]) from the over 20 million references to "physical economy" on Google where there is no connection whatsoever to LaRouche.

In Willmcw's response to the evidence I present, he makes the patently false assertion that "HK does not contest the dozens of other reversions of his LaRouche promoting edits that I removed." First of all, I deny that they are "LaRouche promoting," and secondly, I do contest them; I have restricted myself to two examples out of deference to the request at the top of this page that I be concise. And, this is Rangerdude's case, and I doubt that he will be stingy with his evidence.

Otherwise, Willmcw's response is laden with self-serving misrepresentations. For example, the allegation that "LaRouche followers have picketed Vivaldi concerts" is ridiculous and false; Schiller Institute choruses often perform Vivaldi. [398] These misrepresentations are a effort to throw up a smokescreen to obscure the actual issue, which is Willmcw's violation of Wikipedia policy. I also reject Willmcw's assertion that his "file was chiefly a compilation of the LaRouche movement's interests." What it is in fact is simply a list of every article I had ever edited, combined with shorter lists of edits from two other editors that Willmcw deemed "LaRouche editors." --HK 14:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• As added evidence of another incident, I would like to point out that Willmcw also assembled a list of every article I had ever contributed to and posted it on his sandbox page [399]. The fact that he has done this apparently to at least two different editors in unrelated disputes shows deep seated stalker mentality, evidently willing to put dozens of hours into scouring the entire editing history of his subjects and assembling lists of everything they've ever done going back for months upon months. It also shows extreme hypocrisy considering that Willmcw complained in his RfAr that I was keeping an evidence log of the diffs for his stalking behavior in preparation for this case. Rangerdude 18:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Whose evidence section is this? Can I add evidence about Rangerdude here? -Willmcw 05:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:nskinsella

Regarding Willmcw

I believe Willmcw has engaged in improper wikistalking and politically motivated actions previously in my own case.

For example, he tried to get my own entry deleted twice. The second time, he voted to delete me on alleged grounds of non-notability while at the same time voting to keep an entry of similar notability; when I noted this inconsistency he offered to change his vote on the other entry if I would just vote "delete" of my own entry. Also, he kept saying with no grounds (for it is untrue) that I put up or caused someone to put up my own entry. Also, during that debate, he kept calling my entry a copyright violation, even though it was taken from material on my own site that I gave consent to. I believe Willmcw was basically trying to harass me and make a tempest in a teapot here, as a means of inducing me to adopt the GNU type license on my own website. This is an abuse, in my view.

Also, on the Intellectual Property entry, he kept trying to insist that mention of my own anti-IP article on the IP entry must be followed by a snice comment stating that the article "was copyrighted" by the publisher -- he kept trying to add a comment to the effect that "though the author opposes IP, the article is copyrighted." This was clearly an attempt to make some snide, non-neutral critique of or comment on the article, which was completely out of place, uncalled for, non-sensical, and unjustified.

On the entry for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, after he or someone else added on the Mises entry the SPLC critique and charges of racism etc., and I put up some comments by Horowitz that showed that some people bleieve SPLC exaggerates sometimes--he added to it the David Duke comment, in yet another transparent effort to prop up the SPLC critique. Yet more bias and non-neutrality. It was outrageous for him to try to "defend" the Mises Institute with a quote from white supremacist David Duke, all the while feigning innocence and pretending to be objective.

He also claimed that I was an employee of the Mises Institute--which is simply false. He also made some snide comment about his not being biased because he is not in the pay of the Mises Institute.

It appears to me that Willmcw is one of these people who loves to push the Wiki GNU thing whenever he can; and who has a bias against conservatives or conservative libertarians. This explains his annoying and outrageous attempts to use his power as an admin to make up copyvio accusations to try to twist my arm to put the silly GNU license ON MY OWN SITE. This explains his annoying and petty notice posted after my IP article was referenced in the Intellectual Property entry, to the effect that "please notice that this author claims to be against copyright, yet he copyrights his own article; what a hypocrite. I, Willmcw, sure wish he would put his money where his mouth is and have a GNU license or something. Even if he has no control over what mainstream publishing standards require." And it explains his outrageous insertion of David Duke into the Mises Institute entry, in a transparent attempt to make Mises Inst. look racist by "defending" them from a critic by using Duke to "defend" them. Like a typical liberal, Willmcw thinks he is actually in the right here; the worst problem of liberals is a smug self-righteousness, which is not only wholly undeserved, but pervertedly backwards.

Much of this is discussed and documented here and here. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 20:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence by Katefan0

All times UTC.

Rangerdude often uses a pseudo-legalistic, wikilawyering style of discourse that is hostile and damaging to Wikipedia. Instead of using WP's policies to help build an encyclopedia, he prefers to manipulate them to his purposes (generally POV in nature), in the process hounding good faith editors in the fashion of a vexatious litigant and generally maintaining a belligerent presence. He makes little or no attempt at building true consensus, preferring to spend most of his time wikilawyering and bullying other contributors in a war of attrition as he seeks to maintain his biased edits, finding novel interpretations of WP policies to suit his purposes (or novel ways to discount those same policies), attempting to discredit others' views to manipulate consensus and tirelessly trying to thwart anyone who disagrees with his edits.

Jim Robinson

(Personal attacks, incivility, bullying, inability to accept consensus and WP:POINT)

Rangerdude's conduct on the Jim Robinson page is a good capsule of his uncivil style of intimidation and attempts to thwart consensus using novel/inappropriate interpretations of Wikipedia policies.

His misconduct on this article began on the talk page, when one editor attempted to merge the article into Free Republic, which he disagreed with.

• [400] Apr 15 2005 00:05 Come back when you're mature enough to engage in a polite discussion of the proper placement of this article absent your disposition toward combative rantings and unilateral changes against the consensus
• [401] Apr 15 2005 20:51 This discussion is about the design and placement of this article, not a forum for you to whine about whoever you think has wronged you

• [402] April 16 2005 23:40 When the Jim Robinson article was nominated for deletion (result: merge/redirected to Free Republic), Rangerdude immediately tried to wikilawyer and game the system, charging that its nomination was against VFD policies because the nominator voted merge instead of delete.

He then proceeded to bully editors who voted against his position, challenging their votes and opinions in an attempt to discredit them, a tactic that he has used since in RFCs and other venues:

• [403] Apr 17 2005, 4:45. (Response to User:Thebainer's merge vote) As I noted on Talk:Jim_Robinson where this discussion should be taking place per wikipedia policy...
• [404] Apr 17 2005, 20:11. (Response to my merge vote) this entire exercise is neither in compliance with wikipedia policy for merges (which entails placing a separate and distinct merge tag in the event that one is desired - not a VfD, which is ONLY for articles to be deleted. And in response to my response saying essentially we'll have to agree to disagree [405] It's fine to have opinions, Katefan, but it doesn't justify a VfD request that's in violation of wikipedia procedures.
• [406] Apr 18 2005, 4:56 - 5:42. A series of haranguing posts commenting on editors' votes or comments you need to delete this article, reformulate a completely NEW VfD request in compliance with the Wikipedia VfD Guide, and post it with the new tag and your vote. Changing the question on the ballot midway through the discussion necessarily corrupts the results. I anticipate and hope you will politely comply with this in short order. Otherwise others will have to do it for you.
• [407] Apr 19 2005, 00:57. The vote not going his way, Rangerdude adds the {{disputed}} tag to the VFD
• [408] Apr 30 2005, 20:41. Tony Sidaway properly closed the VFD as merge and redirected the article. Unable to accept the result of consensus, Rangerdude adds the {{disputed}} tag to the then-redirected page.
• [409] May 1 2005, 2:35. The disputed tag reverted as inappropriate, Rangerdude begins harassing Tony for the way he closed the VFD. Yes, but you also IGNORED the fact that other editors had already participated in the consensus in favor of keeping it on the page talk:Jim Robinson <...> Furthermore you seem to be violating wikipedia's own VfD principles
• [410] May 2 2005, 16:14. Rangerdude initiates a VFU, which in itself is not a problem. However, he again bullies and harangues voters who dissent with him:
  • • [411] May 2 2005, 18:35. (To TenOfAllTrades) JC's behavior is completely relevant because he initiated the VfD in conflict with wikipedia policies (JC is Jonathan Christensen)
    • [412] May 2 2005, 19:06. (to Postdlf) The aforementioned claims that an undeletion is unwarranted here are plainly in conflict with Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy, which does indeed permit undeletion in cases where somebody "objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but were improperly ignored."
    • [413] May 3 2005, 6:29. Per the VfU policy, a VfU may be initiated when an editor believes the process "improperly ignored" objections to the deletion and when the VfD was improperly conducted. I have alleged and documented both, to wit [...]
    • Rangerdude made many other similar comments on this vote, sometimes creating response threads three and four lines deep as he repeatedly responded to responses (most notably, Postdlf's) (The diffs have not been preserved becuase the page has been moved, but I encourage arbitrators to look at the page in its entirety [414]).

When the VFU trends toward keeping deleted, Rangerdude begins voting on other VFUs in a violation of WP:POINT. The diff histories are not preserved, but the votes are: Elf Only Inn, Trade Federation PAC, Superliminal, Maha Jana High School To my knowledge, he has not voted at VFU/Deletion review since.

Personal attacks, incivility and bullying

Rangerdude set the tone of our main disputed article Houston Chronicle from the outset, immediately adopting an insulting tone when I posted a message stating I felt the article was biased toward criticism:

• May 26 17:34 Houston Chronicle Editorials and political commentaries are two different things, katefan. [...] Didn't they teach you that in journalism school?

Despite that, I generally tried hard to collaborate with and be polite to Rangerdude in our interactions. [415] [416] [417] [418]. But I quickly began to realize that Rangerdude was not interested in collaborating – rather, it seemed to me that he asked for my opinions not so he could understand and possibly find a middle ground, but so he could nitpick my thoughts in an attempt to shout or wear me down. One of his tactics is to try to discredit his opponents’ opinions about content by turning the discussion toward personal comments. The true turning point for me was this attack on my integrity, suggesting without a shred of evidence that I must be a biased reporter, a highly insulting and potentially damaging allegation:

• Houston Chronicle May 27 2005, 17:39 (about me) A paper's politics are judged by the politics of its reporters as manifested in what they write. A strong left wing tilt is pervasive throughout most of what you write here, and if you are a former Chronicle reporter as you say we can only assume you did the same there...
• Houston Chronicle 27 May 2005, 18:18 Rangerdude takes no responsibility, suggesting his attack was OK because I said he is a POV pusher Considering that you've been prancing around this forum for the last several days calling me a "POV Warrior" and making other similar personal attacks on me in messages to both your friends and on article discussion pages alike, I'll take your purported offense at personal attacks with a heavy grain of salt
• Houston Chronicle 27 May 2005, 18:48 - 21:43 Rangerdude continues to escalate and insult, casting aspersions and using hyperbolic rhetoric that serves to distract from discussing content Throw whatever stones you like from your perch of glass but just remember what you're standing in Houston Chronicle As to your alleged "professional integrity," ... Your alleged "professional integrity" need only be discussed just as I have mentioned it ... The windows of your greenhouse have been shattered, Katefan, and you have only yourself to blame

He has also targeted other editors who have disagreed with his conduct or biased edits:

• Jim Robinson, Apr 19, 2005, 19:19 If anything it's further proof that he simply cannot work with other people in building these articles and goes off throwing fits when he doesn't get his way... (about JC)
• Houston Chronicle; edit summary May 26 2005 00:42 Try actually reading the full resolution before changing the content about it (to Willmcw)
• Houston Chronicle May 26 2005 01:48 As usual, you are being obtuse and deconstructive by pursuing this angle. (to Willmcw)
• User talk:Ed Poor August 20 2005 05:37 You do not have the right to "warn" me about anything in this regard, so I suggest you spend your time advocating your own new policies and mind your own business when it comes to permitting others to do the same (to Ed Poor)

Rangerdude often bullies and intimidates people who disagree with his positions (particularly during RfCs and other instances in which a vote or poll is taken) by commenting on their votes or comments, sometimes extensively, with the intent of discrediting (and thereby discounting) their opinions.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_third_party:_FuelWagon] FuelWagon's statement for this arbitration, which details bullying on RfCs.
• Rangerdude harasses Johntex, suggesting that because he didn't justify why he supported my version enough that it shouldn't count toward a consensus (one counter to Rangerdude's position):
  • • Houston Chronicle May 28, 17:04 Unless you care to address specifics, simply stating "it seems good to me" is of little value to this discussion or reaching an alternative.
    • Houston Chronicle May 28, 17:28 That's still not specific - just a longer version of saying "it looks fine to me."
    • Houston Chronicle May 28, 18:51 If he's not contributing anything towards coming up with a proposal that is agreeable to all parties, then his comments are not useful to establishing Wikipedia:consensus.
    • May 28, 21:02 Houston Chronicle Empty statements of concurrence are of little use when consensus is still lacking though

• Houston Chronicle Don't play stupid and pretend it didn't happen. (In response to my asking for a source for one of Rangerdude’s edits)

Bias

Rangerdude seems primarily interested in editing articles into which he can insert conservative viewpoints. This would not be a problem, except that Rangerdude doesn’t seem to care about ensuring articles are balanced; he on several occasions has inserted so much conservative criticism into articles that it makes them biased, then washes his hands of the article.

Lack of balance in Sheila Jackson Lee, Robert Jensen, Houston Chronicle, Cragg Hines

Sheila Jackson-Lee

The Sheila Jackson-Lee article, pre-Rangerdude, was an unbiased stub. Stub version Once he was done inserting text, [419], [420], [421], [422], the article was severely unbalanced, consisting of 108 words of bio information on a 6-term Democratic U.S. Congresswoman, and 784 words (roughly 85% of the article) worth of cheap shots such as: In early 2004 Jackson Lee praised the Houston Super Bowl for upholding "family values," seemingly unaware of the infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction that marred the event among others: Rangerdude’s unbalanced version.

Rangerdude left it up to others (me) to add bio information to balance the picayune criticisms he inserted. When it was suggested the criticisms be trimmed, he resisted, saying because they are sourced they should not be removed.

Robert Jensen

He later created what was essentially a hatchet page on Robert Jensen, a tenured liberal Texas professor [423]. Despite Jensen's having many published works, Rangerdude's stub focused almost entirely on criticism Jensen received for a 9/11-related editorial in the Houston Chronicle.

Cragg Hines

When creating a stub about Cragg Hines, the Houston Chronicle's DC columnist, Rangerdude felt this quote fitting to include: [424] The KSEV radio-affiliated Lone Star Times blog, which is among the Chronicle's most vocal critics, describes Hines as the "most abrasive, pompous, and obese liberal ideologue" on the newspaper's staff (emphasis mine). When Willmcw removed it as an inappropriate smear from a dubious source [425], Rangerdude reverted it [426]. He eventually left it deleted when I also complained.

Houston Chronicle

Similarly, when I first arrived at Houston Chronicle, I found the same pattern. Rangerdude's preferred version of an article on one of the 10 largest papers in the U.S. had exactly 100 words of history and factual information and more than 1,000 words of criticism (90% of the article). Rangerdude’s unbalanced version. This included biased information such as: The paper's editorial page is often a target for satire and derision in Houston political circles for what critics perceive as an overbearing habit of promoting light rail transit[1] and an equally obsessive practice of attacking Congressman Tom DeLay over nearly weekly political differences, some of them said to be quite petty.

When challenged on these edits and the directive on balance in WP:NPOV, Rangerdude’s response is to say, essentially, that he doesn’t have time to make it balanced (while continuing to work on other articles daily):

• Sheila Jackson-Lee Jan 16 2005 06:31 Also, if you agree that a more detailed biography in the top of the article is needed would you be willing to author it?
• Sheila Jackson-Lee Jan 16 2005, 06:33 I'll add what I can to each section as time permits, but as I said it's a problem that will resolve itself simply by expanding the article (he never did add balancing material)
• Houston Chronicle 26 May 01:34 As usual, you are free to add other sections if you like.
• Houston Chronicle 26 May 19:37 Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough. (in response to my admonition: It is not enough to add information that unbalances an article and then wash your hands of it by saying "you can add other things if you wish.")
• Houston Chronicle May 26 20:14 While balance is desirable (and again I'm fully supportive of adding a counterbalancing history of the paper etc. at the top), time and interest is also prohibitive.
• Robert Jensen June 14 16:52 Then by all means, Katefan, quit whining and write it! (in response to my complaints of lack of balance on Robert Jensen)
• Robert Jensen June 14 21:46 If you think other material should be added, then please specify what material that you would like to see (or better yet - add it yourself). (In response to Willmcw suggesting writing a POV stub and counting on other editors to fix it isn't OK)

Dubious sources

Rangerdude often justifies his biased edits with dubious sources, relying heavily on partisan blogs (especially local blogs), defunct conservative student-published tabloids, organizations with misleading mandates such as this one, Texas Media Watch (which is criticized here) and unverifiable radio broadcasts [427], all of which he generally insists be retained when challenged. When challenged on his use of dubious sources he often points to WP rules stating information should be sourced; unfortunately he neglects to fulfill the corollaries of reliable sourcing and NPOV’s fairness mandate (i.e., sourced doesn’t necessarily = fair).

Houston Chronicle and Texas Media Watch

A case in point. For background, Texas Media Watch (TMW) is a media monitoring project that is no longer active, which is apparently run by a single former Republican spokeswoman. She bills the project as nonpartisan, but it has been criticized as being right-leaning (and appears to be funded by a conservative thinktank).

• May 26 23:32 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude inserted a TMW-sourced criticism, identifying TMW only as a "media monitoring group"
• May 27 00:09 Houston Chronicle I inserted sourced balancing criticism of TMW's alleged partisan bias
• May 27 00:16 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude reverts, calling it "too remote" from the subject of the article and using the tactic of insisting the critical info instead be inserted into a stub article he had created (the original stub has been deleted as a result of AFD)
• May 27 00:34 Houston Chronicle I restored information critical of TMW
• May 27 00:44 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude reverted again, calling the critical information "extraneous" and "off-topic"
• May 27 00:48 T:Houston Chronicle Rangerdude begins to attack me, calling the criticism info ad hominem and accusing me of bias for including it And why is it questionable, Katefan? Because Texas Media Watch has a conservative POV that you don't personally agree with?
• May 27 00:58 Houston Chronicle Willmcw restores information critical of TMW
• May 27 01:05 Houston Chronicle Johntex removes the TMW info in total, saying it's not reliable enough to include at all
• May 27 01:59 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude restores the TMW quote without the criticism of TMW, accusing Johntex of removing it "for POV reason"
• May 27 02:20 - 03:01 Rangerdude finally changes the TMW descriptor from nonpartisan to "conservative" [428] and includes that it's run by a single Republican [429], but only after edit warring up to his 3RR with three people over what amounted to obviously relevant information that should've been included with a minimum of fuss.

Houston Review

Rangerdude has also used the Houston Review, a now-defunct free tabloid put out by some conservative students at the University of Houston as a source for critical information in articles. This in and of itself would be less problematic if the tabloid's website were still functioning. Because it isn't, what Rangerdude has done is linked to Free Republic forums where certain Review articles have been reposted (complete with FR user commentary). I'm not sure it's appropriate to use reposted content in this fashion: [430].

In one particular instance, Rangerdude has used a reposted Houston Review article to back up a bit of biased inference he sought to include. He used this link to "prove" that an internal memo on light rail accidentally posted to the Chronicle's website actually affected news coverage on a light rail referendum. The problem with the Review's analysis is that it only analyzes content the month of the light rail referendum, it does not analyze content prior to that month to give a basis for comparison, making it virtually useless.

The origins of the dispute:

• May 26 01:12 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude adds language that amounts to biased inference about whether the paper's news division actually acted on the internal light rail memo referenced in the article.
• June 2 16:17 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude replaces his biased text after both Willmcw and I removed it. His justification was to go on the attack, asking Willmcw and I to prove a negative T:Houston Chronicle
• June 3 16:17 Houston Chronicle When Willmcw and I asked Rangerdude to come up with some evidence that the memo in fact affected the Chronicle's coverage, Rangerdude reinstated his edit, this time with a link to a reposting of a Houston Review article purporting to have analyzed how many rail articles the Chronicle ran the month of the ballot, claiming this proved that the memo affected coverage.
• In fact, the analysis is virtually useless since it does not analyze the amount of editorials/etc. that the Chronicle ran pre-memo to make any kind of comparison. When challenged on this on the talk page T:Houston Chronicle T:Houston Chronicle, Rangerdude resisted T:Houston Chronicle. It remains in the article because I was preparing to file for mediation.

Other biased edits and inappropriate conduct

• May 26 2005 17:41 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude inserts a lengthy section on a lawsuit filed against the Chronicle by some distributors. I removed, as lawsuit filings against large companies are a dime a dozen and prove nothing. This was backed up by Johntex and Willmcw.
• May 26 2005 17:57 T:Houston Chronicle Curiously, Rangerdude's talk page comment after I removed it made it clear that he intended this as a POV "test" for me: I am actually indifferent about the inclusion of the distributor lawsuit, but added it for the reason of ascertaining your consistency (or lack thereof) in responding to new material to the article. You behaved as expected.

Tom DeLay

• May 26 00:54 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude scrubs sourced information critical of DeLay's involvement in Houston light rail
• May 26 01:30 Houston Chronicle Rangerdude again removes the sourced information, and hypocritically wikilawyers by using the edit summary to enjoin me to "propose it first on the talk page" because the information is "disputed"
• May 26 16:46 Houston Chronicle Again removes the sourced information and again enjoins me to discuss it on the talk page (which we were engaged in already)
• May 26 01:12 Houston Chronicle Again removes the sourced information.

Response to Rangerdude

1. Re: Rangerdude's defense of my balance evidence. I'll just say this: I'm content that arbitrators can adequately evaluate whether Rangerdude fulfilled WP’s mandates on fairness and balance or not.
2. Re: The Houston Review. I haven't labeled it defunct. It is defunct; its website has been down for months if not longer. As to the rest, I have indeed in the past raised the question of whether it's a proper source at all T:Houston Chronicle, as did others, and my opinion hasn't changed. Rangerdude called my criticism of the Houston Review's light rail analysis original research, but that's simply misleading. I never "critiqued" the analysis, beyond saying it's not useful (and in particular isn't enough to justify Rangerdude's biased edit) since the article gives no context.
3. Re: Texas Media Watch. Though I had and still have doubts about using TMW as a source, I never tried to remove it from the article as Rangerdude suggests. Rather, I added balancing context about the organization. Further, it is hypocritical for Rangerdude to suggest that my using an article from the Austin Chronicle as a source is improper, when he himself regularly uses the Houston Press to support his edits. Both are the same sort of paper -- the Austin Chronicle is the free tabloid alternative newsweekly for Austin; the Houston Press is the free tabloid alternative newsweekly for Houston (you'd recognize the same style of these tabloids in most cities of any size). If one is a proper source, the other is as well. Moreover, Rangerdude has repeatedly tried to discredit the information critical of TMW by quoting from the Austin Chronicle article at length as if to imply that I sought to include every bit of it, but it's simply false. The edits in question follow:

Texas Media Watch, a San Antonio-based media monitoring group, cited the memo in its 2003 Bias Indicators Report as an example of "orchestrated bias."[431] (Rangerdude’s addition)

However, Texas Media Watch, which is operated by one person, has itself been criticized as partisan. The Austin Chronicle, which is often criticized for having a liberal bias, said the organization is "entirely dedicated to defending Republican officeholders and policies from critical coverage by the state's major dailies." [432] (My addition, which was supported by two other editors. Completely on point.)

I’d also like to note that Rangerdude seemingly still cannot treat me civilly.

Response by SlimVirgin

This is my response to allegations by Herschelkrustofsky (HK) and Rangerdude of policy violations on my part. I regard the allegations as trivial, and feel it's an abuse of process that they've been turned into a case against me.

HK is well-known on Wikipedia as a LaRouche supporter that Will, Cberlet and I filed a case against, which is why he's involving himself here. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche.

Rangerdude has compiled a case against me because I defended Willmcw in June [433] [434] [435] when I noticed Rangerdude causing him a problem. I again spoke up for Will and Cberlet in July when Rangerdude opened an RfC against them. That turned me into one of Randerdude's targets. Since then, he has posted criticism of me at every opportunity on user-talk, article-talk, and project-talk pages. The criticism involves nit-picking of my edits, wikilawyering regarding my admin actions, and accusations that I act in bad faith.

I want to draw the committee's attention to an attempt I made on November 7 to resolve this with Rangerdude so we could stop the arbitration. I made suggestions at User:SlimVirgin/AGF that we should put everything behind us, not mention the claims and counter-claims again, agree to stay out of each other's way, and treat each other with respect. In response, Rangerdude posted a list of conditions that repeated his allegations, [436] and although he seemed to want to reach an agreement, he continued to post criticism of me elsewhere, [437] [438] [439] so I gave up.

The refactored discussion is here; the full version is here.

Response to Herschelkrustofsky's evidence

Herschelkrustofsky (HK) says I'm "belligerent" and gives three examples.

1. He says I was belligerent toward another LaRouche supporter, Zirkon (talk · contribs), when I warned him he might be blocked for disruption. My response is that the warnings were justified and polite.

Zirkon has made 72 edits: seven to articles, 65 to talk. He has posted long interrogations of Cberlet to Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche in English that's hard to understand about the meaning of the term fair comment, because a court ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite is "fair comment." Zirkon wanted to add a dictionary definition of "fair comment" to explain what the judge meant. Cberlet explained that would be original research. Zirkon's posts took on a sarcastic and faux-polite tone. [440] [441] [442] I warned him that if he continued to interact in this way, he might be blocked from editing. [443] [444]

2. HK alleges that I made disparaging remarks in January 2005 on Talk:John Train Salon about a political activist named Daniel Brandt.

My response is that my comment criticizing Brandt as a reliable source on the issue of who works for the U.S. intelligence community was justified and wasn't "belligerent." HK also alleges that when Brandt became a Wikipedia editor, I wrote an article about him. So what if I had? But in fact, I wrote the stub on September 28 [445] and Brandt became an editor on October 14. [446]

3. HK says I added Ignorance to the list of areas of expertise on User:Cognition's user page. Cognition is another LaRouche supporter.

The diff HK provided [447] shows I was reverting an edit HK had made to the page. Several editors and admins had been reverting Cognition's user page because it contained personal attacks. [448] I have no idea who added Ignorance to it.

Response to Rangerdude's evidence

As I see it, Rangerdude's evidence against me is actually evidence against himself in that it shows the wikilawyering and nitpicking he's been engaged in. I've restricted myself to replying to his allegations of policy violation.

1. He alleges that I violated WP:PP on October 21 by protecting Abba P. Lerner, Physical economics, and Craig Isherwood, while involved in a content dispute on those pages. My response is that I was not involved in a content dispute. I was reverting attempts by User:Cognition to insert LaRouche material into the article, in violation of the arbcom ruling that editors shouldn't promote LaRouche by adding his claims to articles not "closely related" to Lyndon LaRouche, which these aren't. When Cognition continued to revert, I protected. My actions when I reverted and protected were as an admin. I've never edited these pages.

2. He alleges that I violated WP:PP again on October 16 and October 23 when I protected Islamophobia even though I'd recently edited it. My response is that the first protection was against simple vandalism, which WP:PP allows for. My second protection was a week after I'd last edited the article, and I was not involved in the content dispute that triggered the need for protection.

More details: I've edited Islamophobia twice in the last five months: a revert in June, and a more extensive edit on October 15. I vprotected it for eight-and-a-half hours on October 16 following a report of vandalism after an anon IP added the disputed tag, [449] a VfD tag, [450] then deleted the archived discussion of the previous VfD. [451] The blocking policy allows any admin, whether editing the article or not, to vprotect in the case of vandalism.

A week later, on October 23, a new editor, OceanSplash (talk · contribs), who is Ali Sina, the founder of an anti-Islam website called Faith Freedom International, [452] started adding material from his website to Ali Sina and Islamophobia. Ali Sina is a pseudonym, so his real identity is not known, and his website is arguably racist/Islamophobic (carrying comments such as "Muslims have evolved to have no conscience," and for both those reasons, it's not regarded as a credible source. OceanSplash's edits were therefore in violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:AUTO. I protected Ali Sina and Islamophobia, and made suggestions on the talk pages [453] [454] that I thought would help to resolve the dispute, making it clear that I couldn't edit it because I had protected: ""[T]his is just my opinon, and because I've protected the page, I can't edit it; I can only make suggestions with a view to resolving the dispute." [455]

OceanSplash was initially happy with my suggestions. [456] However, he then found out that I had nominated one of the other editors on the page, Anonymous editor, for adminship. This caused OceanSplash to conclude that I was an "Iranian Islamist" and biased. Because he said this, I unprotected the page, and left a message on WP:AN/I [457] asking other admins to keep an eye on the page instead of me, and on Talk:Islamophobia explaining why I was unprotecting. [458] I was at no point involved in the dispute with OceanSplash, nor did I edit any pages with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF

I'm adding some more evidence here to respond to the suggestion on the workshop page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Violations_by_SlimVirgin that I may have violated WP:NPOV and WP:AGF by reducing the size of Rangerdude's edits of Chip Berlet, [459] and by saying I felt he shouldn't be editing the page. [460]

Summary: On July 25, Rangerdude opened an RfC against User:Cberlet. At the same time on several talk pages, Rangerdude criticized Chip Berlet, the real-life Cberlet, as an "extremist" and not someone who should be used as a source for Wikipedia. This criticism was extensive and vitriolic. Three days later, on July 28, with the RfC in progress, Rangerdude added three paragraphs of criticism to Chip Berlet. The context made the edits appear malicious. I therefore reduced the length of Rangerdude's criticism from three paragraphs to one, and advised him that, given his animosity toward Cberlet, I felt he should not be editing Chip's biography. This was not an NPOV violation because NPOV requires balance: an article with too much criticism is not NPOV no matter how well-cited the material is. And AGF can't be allowed to interfere with trying to prevent a potential legal problem.

Details: Chip Berlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was originally created in May 2004 [461] by 172.199.126.121 (talk · contribs) which is one of the AOL IP addresses used by User:Herschelkrustofsky and the other LaRouche accounts. The article looked like it was intended as a vehicle to attack Chip because he's a critic of the LaRouche movement. It's therefore an article with a troubled history of POV editing, and several editors have it on their watchlists to make sure it doesn't stray too far in the direction of unwarranted criticism. Chip has agreed not to edit it, but from time to time has complained on the talk page or on the mailing list, most recently on November 13, when he wrote:

[S]everal Wiki editors with whom I have had a disagreement have gone out of their way to add negative text to my entry ... Editing my entry is a form of juvenile retribution. Am I supposed to publish a printed document refuting false statements plonked onto my entry by cult lunatics, right-wing fanatics, and just plain jerks? Am I supposed to rely on sympathetic and honest Wiki editors who take the time to demand documentation and evidence on my behalf on my entry page? Am I supposed to leave the false and defamatory on my page in the meantime? [462]

I believe Rangerdude is one of the editors Chip is referring to. On July 25, Rangerdude filed an RfC against Cberlet and Willmcw, during which it was clear that he harbored a great deal of animosity toward them both. A few days later, at Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, I saw that Rangerdude was trying to remove a diagram created by Chip Berlet (in real life, not for Wikipedia), showing Chip's view of the roots of anti-Semitism. The chart is here. Rangerdude was arguing [463] [464] that Chip and the company he works for, Political Research Associates, should be regarded as "extremists" under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources provision, which at the time read: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," a passage I was the author of back in March. [465] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party, not research organizations like Political Research Associates. They have a bias, but so do all sources. I believed Rangerdude was arguing this to discredit Chip for reasons because of his clash with User:Cberlet on Wikipedia, and that this was inappropriate and WP:POINT.

Given this background I was concerned when, shortly after the incident with the diagram and while the RfC against Willmcw and Cberlet was still going on, I saw that Rangerdude had added three lengthy paragraphs of criticism to Chip Berlet. [466] He created the RfC on July 25 and added the criticism to Chip Berlet on July 28. Cberlet wrote on Talk:Chip Berlet: "Excuse, me, but is this fair? After Rangerdude files a complaint against me that goes nowhere, he comes here and plops a giant wad of Horowitz screed on my Wiki entry." [467]

The three paragraphs Rangerdude had added were related to criticism published by David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com and added 480 words to a section that had previously been 600 words long, which was disproportionate. I therefore reduced his edits to one paragraph and 120 words [468] retaining links so that people could read the details for themselves. [469] Rangerdude objected and a compromise was reached on the talk page between myself, Rangerdude, Nobs, TJive, and others, the final version ending up as one paragraph, 250 words. [470] My intention in making these edits was to preserve NPOV, not to undermine it, and also to ensure that no WP:POINT was taking place, with Rangerdude (as I saw it) allowing his feelings about User:Cberlet to spill over into the main namespace.

During the discussion about his edits, I made the comment to Rangerdude that I felt he ought not to be editing the article and that I was thinking of taking the matter further. [471] What I meant by taking the matter further was that, if Rangerdude had continued to add criticism to the page, I was going to make Jimbo and/or the arbcom aware of the situation, because I believed that his actions looked like malice, and that could potentially have created a legal problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)