Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude

Full text of request:

Involved parties



 * Summary

Rangerdude is harassing editors who disagree with his POV.

User talk:Rangerdude 19:59, August 23, 2005
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

On June 10, I received a request from mediator user:MacGyverMagic to enter mediation on "Houston Chronicle". I acknowledged my interest in mediation, and on June 14 I saw a mediation page had been set up so I tried to participate. Rangerdude refused. 

Rangerdude and I filed cross-complaints on June 15, including and Requests for comment/Rangerdude. We subsequently agreed to mediation and the RfC was withdrawn.

We both agreed to a mediator, Andrevan. Mediation never proceeded because we couldn't agree on how to proceed, despite the mediator's repeated inquiries (Rangerdude said that I might stalk him via email, and I said that I did not want a public mediation). Rangerdude referred in some places to "mediation against" me, possibly indicating bad faith in the dispute resolution process.

Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw was posted by Rangerdude on July 25, 2005 and closed by him on July 30, 2005.

Statement by Willmcw
Harassment of editors Rangerdude is harassing and bullying editors who disagree with him or his edits. His goal seems to be either to end our involvement as editors or to punish us for disagreeing with him.

Cberlet Rangerdude brought an RfC against Cberlet and myself on account of our edit work on Ludwig von Mises Institute. The RfC charged us with "lack of civility, disruption, POV pushing, personal attacks on other editors, disregard of WP policies, disregard of talk page and consensus-building efforts, bad faith edits and assumptions". Only four editors (two of them LvMI associates) certified or endorsed Rangerdude's statement, while 14 endorsed Cberlet's statement and a total of ten editors posted separate views, most of which were against Rangerdude and some which received wide support. On the basis of that outcome, it appears that the community strongly rejected Rangerdude's view.

Rangerdude then heavily and contentiously edited Chip Berlet's biography and sought to have Berlet's published research deemed too extreme to use as a source for Wikipedia articles. At the same time he actively edited and created articles about one of Berlet's real-life adversaries, David Horowitz, with a positive POV.

FuelWagon FuelWagon was one of the more vocal editors in the RfC, despite having had no prior involvement with either of us. He wrote a clearly-worded and boldy-formatted comment saying that the problem lay more with Rangerdude than with Cberlet or me. Rangerdude first reformatted his comment then effectively tried to add FuelWagon to the RfC. Shortly after the close of that RfC Rangerdude filed a separate RfC against FuelWagon. Requests for comment/FuelWagon. The charges include having a "belligerent" tone in RfCs and filing a "false 3RR warning against another user". The RfC against FuelWagon received no endorsements or co-certifications. An opposing view received four endorsements within the initial 48-hour period.

SlimVirgin Rangerdude has also harassed SlimVirgin, who had had no editing interactions with him prior to commenting on the Cberlet/Willmcw RfC, and whose crime seems to have been speaking positively about us. In a number of edits he attacked her by name and he has made attacks on "wiki-cliques" that seem directed at SlimVirgin and other editors. He apparently opposed Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk simply because SlimVirgin was the nominator.

Willmcw Rangerdude has been attacking me as a "stalker" since June, 2005. He uses the de-listed RfC as an "attack file" with an ever-growing list of charges. I responded initially, but have not replied to every new addition. Rangerdude has copied and extended that file (minus my responses and other discussion) at User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking. He brandishes the charge as an attack in talk pages and edit summaries.              (Recent instances:   ) He seeks out other editors to warn them about my supposedly-abusive behavior, encourages them to bring dispute actions, and repeats the charges as a reason for editors to disregard my opinion.         

Katefan0 Rangerdude bullies Katefan0 in their editing disagreements, such as in Talk:Jim Robinson and Votes for deletion/Jim Robinson.   

Other issues From his earliest edits Rangerdude has been a POV warrior with a strongly pro/neo-confederate bias.      He both shows bad faith and fails to assume good faith in others. He has followed my edits with an apparent intent to harass, in ways that mimic his own definition of wikistalking.      

Statement by Katefan0
Rangerdude has made unfounded and potentially damaging personal attacks against me and has attacked other editors, has bullied and harassed editors who disagreed with him, disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, and aggressively inserted biased information throughout Wikipedia, while bludgeoning and smearing good faith editors who disagree with him. I have engaged Rangerdude in extensive dialogues on talk pages, largely to no effect. I opened an RfC over our main disputed article, Houston Chronicle, which received no replies. I then requested mediation, which formally opened on June 10. However, the mediator has been absent since that time and the dispute remains stalemated. Rangerdude continues to bully editors on Stalking, through RfC’s and on other articles.

Personal attacks and harrassment

Rangerdude made a serious (and potentially libelous) attack against my personal and professional integrity. When I protested, Rangerdude’s response was to escalate. He has also targeted other editors who have disagreed with his conduct or biased edits:, , edit summary, , , among others.

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. ,, , , , ,.

He has purposefully misrepresented my position in a debate to further his own position my original posting here. Misrepresentations:, ,. Despite my admonitions to the contrary,, he continued harass me about my own opinions , ,.

He does not truly seek to resolve conflicts, seemingly preferring to argue his opponents into submission or deflect blame (here suggesting I alone am creating an impasse ), often reverting up to his limit under 3RR and haranguing dissenters on related talk pages. Reversions:, , ,. Talk:.

Dismissing or manipulating consensus

Rangerdude rarely accepts consensus unless it furthers his position or he is forced to yield. (Here he harangues Tony Sidaway, the VfD closer on Jim Robinson ). Or, he interprets consensus to suit his needs: Here, a consensus of two editors is enough when it furthers his position, but when it does not, a consensus of two (myself and Johntex) isn't enough; moreover, he harasses Johntex in an attempt to discredit his opinions:  ,.

He has manipulated policies to circumvent or defy consensus: (here he adds a  tag to the VfD vote on Jim Robinson ), and later on the redirect created as a result of the VfD vote ),.

He has violated WP:POINT when consensus has not gone his way. When Jim Robinson was properly VfD’d, and then failed to be undeleted through VfU, Rangerdude began voting keep on several other articles up for VfU at the same time. ,, ,. He has not voted on VfU since.

Bias

Rangerdude seems primarily interested in editing articles into which he can insert conservative viewpoints both positive (Ludwig von Mises Institute) and negative (Sheila Jackson Lee). This would not be a problem, except that Rangerdude doesn’t seem to care about ensuring that articles he works on are balanced; he regularly inserts so much conservative criticism into articles that it makes them biased, then washes his hands of the article. After these additions, , , the article referenced contained three short paragraphs of bio information on a multi-term member of the U.S. Congress, and more than a page of cheap shots:. Rangerdude left it up to others (primarily, me) to insert bio information that would serve as a balance to his additions. He later created what basically amounts to a hatchet page on her husband and, similarly, on a liberal university professor. 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 almost daily). ,, , , , , ,.

Additionally, he often justifies his biased edits with dubious sources which he deems reliable, including partisan blogs, partisan student-published tabloids, organizations with misleading mandates such as this one (which is criticized here) and unverifiable radio broadcasts, which he insists be retained when challenged. He has also been known to delete or oppose criticism of conservative figures (here scrubbing information critical of Tom DeLay (and edit warring in the process)):, , , , ). Other biased edits: , ,.

Statement by Johntex
Rangerdude has harassed Wikipedia editors, including myself. He has violated Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV,   WP:CIV, WP:DEL, and also Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:POINT.

Much of his harassing behavior is an attempt to inject his POV into article, such as in the example I illustrate below, where he harasses me by maliciously listing for VfD an article I created.

POV-pushing

User:Rangerdude has shown a history of POV-pushing on Houston Chronicle. His edits attempt to include as much negative information about the paper as possible. He even admits he does not feel responsible for making balanced edits, as in this exchange:
 * 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…” User:Katefan0
 * Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough..” User:Rangerdude

In his attempts to create a biased article, he displays a willingness to cite any source that agrees with his POV, regardless of how un-noteworthy or biased the source. He also tries to create Wikipedia articles about these sources in an effort to bolster their apparent credibility in his arguments.

Introducing spurious sources

Rangerdude created an article on Texas_Media_Watch (TMW) because he wanted to quote TMW in POV arguments he wished to make on Houston Chronicle. I looked into TMW and found evidence that it was simply a one-person “organization” pushing the agenda of Sherry Sylvester and that the “organization” had not even been active since her departure. TMW did not qualify as a reputable source to be quoting at Houston Chronicle, and she/they certainly did not meet the notability standard for her/its own article. Thus at I listed TMW for VfD. The result of the VfD discussion was "Delete":

Harassment of editor

After I listed TMW for deletion, Rangerdude took a sudden interest in an article I created on college football player Dusty Mangum and listed that page for VfD. I believe he did this in an attempt to intimidate me and anyone else who might dare consider listing one of his non-notable articles for VfD. Looking at Rangerdude’s last 3 months of edits: He has made no other edits to topics relating to college football, The University of Texas at Austin, or similar topics that would lead one to believe he was interested in Dusty Mangum for any other reason than to harass me. He has nominated no other article for VfD. He rarely even votes on VfD at all.

Among this discussion on the Dusty Mangum VfD was this statement:
 * Comment. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -Willmcw 07:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To which Rangerdude made this unsigned reply:
 * Comment. Don%27t_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point

Thus, Rangerdude ‘’’admitted’’’ that he violated WP:POINT by listing Dusty Mangum on VfD solely because I had created the article. This is also a violation of WP:DEL which states that users should sign their posts of VfD pages. The VfD result on Dusty Mangum was "Keep"

According to Rangerdude's own postings, he has shown himself to be harassing me. He is causing serious detriment to the project.

Statement by Rangerdude
Given the timing of this dispute and the editors involved in it, I can only respond by noting that it appears to be a frivolous retaliatory move by User:Willmcw against me for filing a request for arbitration against him and User:SlimVirgin following an extensive pattern of harassment and belligerency by both of these editors towards myself. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that Willmcw has made retaliatory complaints against other users who have reported him for violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Willmcw filed a similar frivolous retaliatory RfC against me in June 2005 only hours after I posted my initial complaint report against him on the incident noticeboard for wikistalking. His purpose in both cases should accordingly be viewed as a disruptive and bad faith attempt to deflect investigation into his own repeated bad behavior and policy violations by way of initiating a competing complaint against his accusers.

As I detailed and documented at length in my arbitration case against Willmcw and in a list of evidence assembled for that case and its related RfCs, Willmcw has engaged in a continuous pattern of harassment and wiki-stalking against myself since shortly after I arrived on wikipedia. In my experience with Willmcw I have found him to be an extremely vocal POV pusher who actively promotes a liberal/leftist viewpoint in his edits and who uses his editing privileges on Wikipedia to engage in political activism on a number of pet causes, among them: pro-illegal immigration, political correctness, environmentalism, and politically motivated attacks on conservatism, libertarianism, the U.S. Republican Party, and figures, groups, organizations, and publications affiliated with each.

Recent examples of POV pushing by Willmcw:
 * Use of POV weasel words - Willmcw adds/restores the scare-term "controversial" to the opening sentence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian philsopher who is of the opposite political viewpoint of his own. Willmcw removes the same scare-term "controversial" out of the opening sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization that he agrees with.
 * Use of POV qualifiers - Willmcw adds the term "neo-confederate," a pejorative, as a descriptive qualifier of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LVMI), a libertarian think tank he disagrees with. Willmcw removes the word "leftist" as a descriptive qualifier of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from the same sentence, calling it a "POV term". Willmcw removes "leftist" from SPLC and reinserts "neo-confederate" before LVMI (thus keeping the pejorative on the group he dislikes and removing it from the group he likes) after I pointed out the inconsistency and noted that NPOV dictates the article should contain both, to balance each other out, or neither.

Willmcw has a bad habit of harassing other editors who differ with this viewpoint both on political and non-political articles alike. He has done this to me since we first encountered each other and I have seen him treat other editors who come from conservative or libertarian viewpoints similiarly. His stalking of me includes his following me to over 40 different articles on such diverse subject matters as United States trade law, astronomy, libertarian philosophy, the American Civil War, historians, think tanks, newspaper and radio outlets, and academic biographies. As I described in detail here, many of these cases of following were for the explicit purpose of disrupting and harassing my edits including staging challenges against settled and documented factual material and generally trolling for reasons to delete, disrupt, or even make minor unnecessary alterations to my contributions on wikipedia for no other reason than the fact that I am the one who made them. As Willmcw noted, this did indeed lead to me filing an RfC against him and another user over POV pushing and belligerency on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article (located here). What he fails to inform you of are the reasons behind this RfC, which included a blatantly inappropriate attempt by Willmcw to disrupt this article's content with quotations from David Duke, the notorious Ku Klux Klan activist. Other inappropriate behavior by Willmcw on this article included attempts to disguise edits in which he removed content as "adding citations" and censoring out sourced material that differed from his political POV. It should also be noted that several other editors involved in that article concurred that this behavior was inappropriate and others who read the RfC subsequently helped with extensive work on the LVMI article to remove the biased and inappropriate material Willmcw was pushing there at the time.

That Willmcw, who has intentionally targetted and harassed my edits over the better part of a year to degrees that would drive many other editors to leave wikipedia in frustration and disgust (and indeed, Willmcw has done just that to dozens of other editors), would turn around and accuse me of the same is the height of absurdity and suggestive that he engages in psychological projection as a defense mechanism when scrutinized over his actions. A quick review of his bizarre accusations towards me of "pro-neo-confederate POV pushing" found above demonstrate just how deep seated his agenda of harassment is as it includes diffs that were not even authored by me! (for example: ) In the same "examples" he seems to even take issue with me for such routine (1) pointing out inappropriate behavior and namecalling by other editors by linking them to the appropriate policy, (2) removing POV and pejorative terminology from articles, (3) using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures to resolve a difference with another editor (normally him or one of his allies), which are my right to use, and (4) adding new content to articles! As usual with Willmcw, the real disputes he has with these actions are the fact that the edits I made differ with his political POV pushing and the fact that I am the one who made them (excepting, of course, the cases where he's attempted to attribute somebody else's anon IP edit to me!)/ Elaborating on his assertion, Willmcw accuses me of "harassing" other editors including Katefan0, SlimVirgin, and Cberlet as if to imply that I've somehow wronged each of them independent of my disputes with him. This is an absurdity in its own right, for what Willmcw fails to reveal is that each of these named editors has a strange habit of popping up right in the middle of virtually every article where I've posted a complaint or grievance with Willmcw's own behavior to either defend him in disregard of the facts, assist him in revert wars that target my edits, and generally disrupt anything I'm working on with the seeming aim of driving me off wikipedia articles (an aim that SlimVirgin has openly espoused, as documented in my RfAr against her and Willmcw below ). Examples of where this happened include Houston Chronicle, Chip Berlet, Thomas Woods, Requests_for_comment/Cberlet_%26_Willmcw, talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, and multiple others. As documented here and in my RfAr below, Willmcw and SlimVirgin have also coordinated attacks on my user page and coordinated revert wars with each other to harass my edits, coordinated hits aimed at voting down any RfC I post, and even coordinated attempts to alter my RfC posts in a way that casts their position in a favorable light or removes specific questions that I've requested comment on. To put it mildly, for this exact same group of editors - esp. Willmcw, SlimVirgin, and Katefan0 - to show up over and over and over again at virtually any article where I've disputed the edits or behavior of one of their own is anything but coincidental. In fact out of the hundreds of thousands of editors on wikipedia, untold thousands of whom I've edited along side and gotten along with, this small group of politically and personally aligned editors who constantly conduct themselves to support each other in disputes and insulate each other from culpability when one or more breaks the rules are the only editors on wikipedia who I regularly have much of any disagreement with.

I find it unusual that User:Katefan0 and User:Johntex would choose to join this arbitration request based almost entirely upon an ongoing editing dispute at the Houston Chronicle article. As the matters involving the Houston Chronicle article are currently the subject of a still-pending mediation case on that article, I consider it inappropriate and premature that they would seek to join Willmcw's arbitration case as other dispute resolution mechanisms on that article have NOT yet been exhausted, and as far as I am aware all parties to that dispute had previously agreed to mediation including Katefan0, who described her position there at length. The dispute on this particular article is political in nature and entails difference in content regarding opinion. While Katefan0 accuses of "POV pushing" on this article, she fails to disclose that she is guilty of the very same offense in her own right and perhaps even more so. Examples include deleting = sources that she deems to be critical of the Houston Chronicle ; Adding passages from far-left wing sources containing unrelated political attack information on sources used in the article ; Making ad hominem attacks on conservative sources, such as the Houston Review and Texas Media Watch, to portray them as politicized or unreliable  while simultaneously adding and promoting politicized left wing sources like the Austin Chronicle.; adding original research on indirectly related subject matter for the purpose of attacking U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Katefan0 has also pushed a pro-Chronicle POV by multiple reversions and extreme stubbornness exhibited on the talk page in which she has sought to remove the word "criminal complaint" from a description of a legal motion the newspaper filed (Katefan0 quote- "I will resist any attempts to use "criminal" as an adjective for the complaint") despite the fact that Texas law and even the newspaper itself described it as a criminal complaint. When the statute itself was directly cited in the article text to show that the complaint was classified as criminal under state law Katefan0 also deleted the reference. It should be noted on the Houston Chronicle article that Katefan0 has repeatedly volunteered that she is a former employee of the Houston Chronicle and cited that employment as a basis for her desired edits and in discussions about those edits. While she has been accusing everybody else who says anything critical about the Houston Chronicle of being "biased" or "POV" since the moment she arrived at this article, Katefan0 seems to exhibit a strong personal POV of her own toward this paper as a former employee and many of her edits have been aimed at removing, watering down, or spinning any criticism that's been made of the paper by another source or media outlet.

I also suspect that this move by Katefan0 may be in part retaliatory dating back to an unrelated disagreement we had many months ago on the Jim Robinson article. From that time until the present Katefan0 has been occassionally following my edits to such articles as the Houston Chronicle, Sheila Jackson Lee, various VfD's and RfA's, RfC's I have initiated on other unrelated matters (including the earlier stages of the dispute with Willmcw) and most recently Stalking - typically for the purpose of opposing whatever position I am advocating or voting against whatever way I vote, seemingly for no other reason than for my involvement. This particular editor also has very strong political opinions on many articles and frequently confuses differences of opinion with "personal attacks" on herself. Thus, opposing her opinion on article content, article subject matter, a wikipedia administrative matter, or even a vote is, in her mind, "personal attacks" or "bullying." This description has been applied by her to dozens of links to our past disputes in her case above, yet virtually every one of them is a content dispute where she has mistaken differences on wording or opinion for a personal affront to herself.

Katefan0 also seems unaware of or unwilling to abide by NPOV_tutorial, which states of articles that have viewpoint imbalance on sourced material that they "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." This provision also specifically says that "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Yet as her complaint above evidences, Katefan0 has both used a temporary imbalance in articles such as the Houston Chronicle as a reason to justify her subtraction of critical material, no matter how sourced it is, and as a basis to attack me personally with allegations of pushing propaganda. When I suggested many times that she should add to the article instead of subtracting from it as this guideline instructs Katefan0 responded in hostility toward me personally, shunned this suggestion, and now even cites the fact that I made it in her RfAr complaint against me! If adding to the article is not the remedy for balancing it then why does the guideline say that it is and why should I be held at fault for simply informing her of the same thing that the guideline says to do?

I am at loss for an explanation of what could have induced JohnTex to seek this case beyond the fact that he was on Katefan0's side of the Houston Chronicle dispute (and was personally recruited by her to participate there). Beyond that, I have not even had substantial interaction with JohnTex on wikipedia since early June! As I have no current disputes with JohnTex and rarely if ever even encounter him on wikipedia, and as his case her pertains entirely to subjects involving an article that is currently still in mediation, I see little purpose that his arbitration request could accomplish and consider it little more than a bad faith attempt to assist Willmcw and/or Katefan0 in pressing what ultimately comes down to a frivolous complaint that was intiated without any doubt for retaliatory reasons. I do find it curious that he would choose to make WP:POINT allegations against me for a VfD at the time of the Houston Chronicle dispute given that he himself was simultaneously VfD'ing new pages I created for WP:POINT reasons and consider it outright bizarre that he would try to make a case upon the fact that I forgot to sign a single message post out of dozens in my exchanges with him. Such behavior on his part could rightly be described as a nitpicking personal vendetta and appears to offer very little if anything of relevance wikipedia's quality, content, or even genuine editing disputes. It should be noted that Johntex seems to be similarly unaware of NPOV_tutorial, hence his support for Katefan0's attempts to subtract legitimate sourced information from articles.

As a concluding note - should this case proceed involving the allegations made here, I will similarly be asking the arbitrators to examine evidence of severe POV pushing on the part of Willmcw and Katefan0 as well as the disruptive retaliatory behavior entailed in filing this case, which constitute WP:POINT abuses, in the case of all three editors. Rangerdude 03:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party (Willmcw RFA v Rangerdude): FuelWagon
I already posted my comment about Rangerdude's RFC against Cberlet and Willmcw in this diff. It is my statement as a third party in the Rangerdude RFA against Wilmcw and SlimVirgin bookmarked here. That comment applies to this RFA as well. FuelWagon 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement made by third party User:Zeq
Summary: I am new to wikipedia but i would like to stay and contribute. My minimal interaction with slim has the influence that caused me to consider if, as an new user, I would continue to contribute to Wikipedia. So far I have decided to stay  despite her actions and personal attacks .


 * 1) My first interaction with her was on the contentious issue of the Israeli west bank barrier. Slim have "floated" or "landed out of the blue" once in a while in the middle of heated discussion edits and did one simple thing: Reverted well sourced edits.
 * 2) It was not long when I understood that such a discouraging acts are targeted at edits which do not fit her political POV. To be clear: I understand very much that an editor or an admin protecting pages from vandalism have got used to revert pages that have been vandalized, but to act in this manner in the middle of discussions on issues that require real, deep understanding and participation is counter productive.
 * 3) next, I was subject to several name calling by slim when I commented on an RfA by herRequests_for_adminship/Ramallite. She wanted to appoint to an admin a user who was engaged in edit war and POV pushing and when I objected she called me "difficult editor".
 * 4) Later I noticed that this RfA is not the first in which she tries to push to amidships an editor who's anti-Israel bias is clear. Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor

As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what of wikipedia rules has she violated but I clearly feel she is pushing a certain POV in more than one legitimate way.

Statement by MacGyverMagic
My apologies for allowing this dispute to end in arbitration. Obligations outside of Wikipedia have prevented me from doing anything as time-consuming as mediation for a while now, and this particular case turned out more difficult than I initially thought. I've taken steps to ensure active people are tending to the mediation requests now. - Mgm|(talk) 07:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted. James F. (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 19:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge &#10149;the Epopt 03:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration merge problems
As I understand it, both my original case against user:Willmcw and user:SlimVirgin and a second case filed later by user:Willmcw against me were accepted by the Arbcom. Yet in reviewing the Arbcom votes on both cases it appears clear to me that the votes on arbitration for Willmcw's complaint against me (Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude) were to accept and merge that case into the first case, which I filed (Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin), not the other way around as has been done. This is explicitly stated in James F.'s vote "Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted" and indicated in the three subsequent votes, which all state "Accept and merge." None of the Arbcom votes on Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin had a merge stipulation, indicating it was understood that the other case would be merged into it - not the other way around. Given this, I am posting this note to ask an Arbcom member correct the listings on these two cases to reflect these votes. I apologize if this appears to be nitpicking and I believe it was simply an honest mistake, but I want to make sure that this case proceeds by the books out of fairness to myself and to all parties involved. Thanks - Rangerdude 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)