Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw

Comment to Bishonen re: summary - if you disagree with the way that I've characterized the attempts at resolution, by all means demonstrate something otherwise happened. Look at the course of the conversation and tell me who spoke politely and who spoke with profanity, personal insults, and allegations of "censorship" and other unseemly acts. It's not hard to tell. And please forgive me, but I must also express skepticism with your characterization of the addition of unrelated David Duke quotes to an article as "perfectly reasonable" and "good NPOV'ing." Rangerdude 02:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, here it is, it was directly underneath my summary last time I saw it. That's a good move, it's better here. But you think I commented without looking at the course of the conversation? That's pretty... well, let's just say, of course I didn't. Yes, I disagree, and I do most heartily forgive you for disagreeing with my disagreement, I would expect you to. Please forgive me, in turn, if I ask you to make sure you don't sound like you want to bully people who comment. You filed a request for comment from the community, remember. I'm afraid I don't have time or inclination to jump through the hoops you suggest. (Profanity? Is that "ass"?) Bishonen | talk 03:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a very peculiar attitude, Bishonen. I moved the comments here when I was reformatting the section errors because it is where they belong. Reading more into it than that, and using it as the basis for smart-alecky personal attacks is not very...shall we say...administrator-like. I responded to your comment, as I am free to do, because I found at the time (and still find) the logic you employed in reaching it to be dubious at best. Beyond that the most we can do is agree to disagree. Rangerdude 04:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What..? Reading more into..? You have a very suspicious attitude, Rangerdude. You think it's sarcasm when I say "That's a good move, it's better here"? Why on earth..? Anyway, I can assure you it's not. Moving your comment to this page was a good idea, I say so in all good faith, how would you like me to put it? Sheesh. I didn't expect to get flamed for commenting on an RfC according to the best of my understanding. Of course I realized you wouldn't like my opinion, but RfC means Request for Comment, not Request for Compliments. Once you open one of those, you'll have to put up with people expressing their views frankly, and, I suggest again, resist the temptation to bully them for it. For the record, I'm not aware of having made any "smart-alecky personal attacks". (The question about "ass" was a smart-alecky remark, but that's not the same thing.) Anyway, I'm taking this page off my watchlist now, I've full confidence in people taking any further accusations from you for what they're worth. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

On Personal Insults
What I find to be a personal insult on Wiki:
 * 1) False courtesy.
 * 2) Passive/aggressive behavior.
 * 3) Feigned concern for standards.
 * 4) Arbitrary reverts while claiming to be editing in good faith.
 * 5) Staged confrontations to make a complaint record.
 * 6) Omphaloskeptic citation of Wiki policies.
 * 7) Smug dismissal.
 * 8) Patronizing lectures.
 * 9) Paternalism posing as formality.
 * 10) Priapic obstinance.
 * 11) Page hijackings posing as NPOV.
 * 12) Longwinded talk page essays full of sound and fury - yet signifying nothing.

Perhaps I am too glib, and offend by being sarcastic. Apologies. But I say what I think. And prefer it when others do likewise.

I will ponder this during a 48 hour break from editing the page in question. --Cberlet 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The disguised vitriol above aside, anybody interested in what Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks really says may view it at No personal attacks. The author of the above is also invited to spend some time on that page during his pending contemplative period. Perhaps then he will come to understand why other editors are finding his behavior objectionable. Rangerdude 04:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Chip, the items you have listed are not even considered offensive here! Show utter disrespect for a fellow editor -- get a pat on the back. Call them an arsehole -- feel the weight of the policy. This attitude is demonstrated on this very page. Some like a passive-aggressive paradise, where they can hide behind "policies" as a means to attack their enemies. Like you, I prefer straight talking and believe it leads far more quickly to resolution and ultimately to good work. Still, you need to take care on your own account not to allow your personal views to flavour your contributions too richly. Work for the opposition occasionally and you become a smaller target for, well, anyone who might want to shoot at you. -- Grace Note

Responses to Question by Robert McClenon
I am not entirely sure what all of the heat is about. If I were asked to judge at this time, I think that I would say that the complainant is being unreasonable, but that I would ask to wait a few days to think about it.

I have read through the diffs. I don't see exactly what the case is. I would ask Rangerdude to provide a brief summary of what he thinks that the wrongs committed by the other two users are. Robert McClenon 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert, Here's what I think the heat is about...I don't see how the editorial actions re David Duke can be seen as good editorial policy. Such had the blatant effect of comparing those who criticize the SPLC to that KKK-nutcase. The other things I object to is: (1) The proliferation of critiques by the SPLC. Any attempt to shorten them was labelled as "censorship", even when responding material was also shortened correspondingly; (2) To the objection that the article was becoming more an article about the SPLC's opinions on the LvMI, than an article on the SPLC, it was objected that such objections were "censorhip". I don't see this. Criticisms can be voiced briefly without going into unwieldly and lengthy quotes, especially from second-rate non-scholarly criticism like the stuff found on the SPLC; (3) Furthermore, responding to the objection that the article was disproportionately weighted on SPLC criticisms, some editors responded that "then you should add more material on LvMI positions". However, neither I nor anyone else can possibly construct quality-summries of LvMI positions as fast as can lengthy quotes from emotionally charged accusations at the SPLC be brought up. Thus, the article will apparently forever be especially disproportionately weighted on the SPLC's criticisms. (4) Finally, at one point, someone disguised a description of the "position" of the LvMI by using out-of-context quotes of Rothbard from an SPLC article (quotes which the SPLC did not reference). This is disingenuous when discussing the positions of the LvMI. --Dh003i 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert - Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. As you requested a brief summary of the issues here, I'm happy to oblige. The jist of my complaint can be summarized in two parts:


 * First, I am contending that the current disputes on the LVMI article are primarily the result of intentionally disruptive editing behavior by a small number of individuals with strong personal political beliefs against the LVMI itself that have led them to introduce an inordinately large amount of material favorable to their position while simultaneously screening and restricting material that disagrees with it. In short, there is an active effort to bias this article's text against LVMI, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Evidence of this effort may be found in many of the edits by Willmcw including his additions of extraneous wholly unrelated material by notorious racists such as David Duke to discredit more legitimate and mainstream sources that differ with his POV. Other evidence of it may be found in his removal of balancing language that is critical of his political viewpoint, including at least once where he passed off this edit as something inoccuous and minor. He has also employed an extremely partisan political source that is favorable to his viewpoint for the purpose of crafting a "factual" section on LVMI's beliefs - something that is forbidden in Reliable sources. He has also actively sought to remove counterbalancing sources that are critical of his position by erroniously labelling them "blogs" and then stating they cannot be used as sources because of that. The sum of this behavior is fundamentally anti-NPOV, which is problematic for Wikipedia because NPOV is one of our driving mandates.


 * Second, I am contending that both Willmcw and Cberlet have been personally abusive towards other editors involved in this article. In doing so they have soured several attempts to reach a constructive solution on the NPOV disputes at the article. They have also violated many Wikipedia policies against personal attacks. Some examples: Willmcw made personal attacks on the occupation and place of employment of another contributer, User:Nskinsella, on the talk page and in his edit description. Cberlet has made several personal attacks on myself and other editors as well including profanity, bad faith allegations of "censorship" in response to a simple request that he make NPOV and other revisions to his proposed edit to bring them in accordance with WP policies , and attacks and other derogatory remarks aimed at the political affiliations of other editors. All of these things are explicitly prohibited by No personal attacks and related policies.


 * I feel that this RfC is necessary because both the POV pushing and the personal abuse and other Wikipedia policy violations by these two editors has continued unabated despite several attempts to curtail the personal abuses and initiate discussions aimed at reconciling the NPOV dispute tag that is currently on the article. In fact, earlier today when I was attempting to get Cberlet to participate in a civilized talk page discussion about the NPOV problems I indicated that a RfC of this very nature might be in order as the next step if he was unwilling to work, and he essentially told me in not so polite terms to go ahead and start one! If there is a mediator out there who would like to volunteer his or her services to this case I believe that would be a reasonable next step. Thank you again for your input. Rangerdude 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Willmcw also has done the following to me. First, someone else posted my entry months back. I had no knowledge of or involvement in it. Willmcw initiated a delete. In the delete he called my entry non-notable (which I did not contest), and also that it was vanity. He has stated many times that I caused it to be put up, even though I have denied this. So he is not assuming good faith and is calling me a liar, in effect. Second, during that debate, he kept calling my entry a copyright violation, even though it was taken from mateiral 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. He also bases a lot of his comments about copyright, in that matter, and on the Intellectual Property entry, based on a fallacious understanding of copyright. He kept trying to insist that mention of my own anti-IP article on the IP entry, have a comment after it stating that the article "was copyrighted" by the publisher; 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. Then, 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. All the while Willmcw feigns innocence and pretends to be objective about all this. I for one find it disheartening that such an influential and active editor keeps doing this kind of thing. This is just my personal view, from what I have seen. I do not claim to be an angel but am trying to abide by Wiki policies. Stephan Kinsella 18:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade?
User:Sam Spade has never been involved in the dispute at Ludwig von Mises Institute and his listing himself in the dispute section is not appropriate. Sam Spade also fails to mention that we both agreed to mediation by a real Wiki mediator, not one of his allies, and that mediation is ongoing. His entry should be moved to the proper section.--Cberlet 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, Sam was never a participant in this dispute. His presenting evidence here is inappropriate, particularly in the light of his ongoing mediation with one of the accused Cberlet, and the "evidence" he presented is highly dependent on his particular interpretation of outside events, irrelevant to the matter at hand. FeloniousMonk 16:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've moved the endorsement by Sam Spade to the appropriate section. It appears to me to have been a simple mistake. Please assume good faith. Rangerdude 19:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Was user:Wyss involved? I don't remember any contributions from him either. -Willmcw 00:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Wyss 01:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason why Cberlet and FM are not allowed to edit the disputants section, and I feel accomadating them in this way was unfortunate. I think perhaps Rangerdude, DickClarkMises, and or Stephan Kinsella might do well to review the links in question and decide for themselves which add to the basis of their complaint, and make a decision whither my inclusion as a disputant would aid them or distract from their case. The evidence can be included without my signature as a formal litigant, btw. That said, its not a big deal, and I will respect the judgement of Rangerdude and the other parties currently listed as disputing this user's conduct on this project page. In summary, please do whats best for you, and the project, rather than what might appease either myself, the accused, or their fellow partisans. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam - Thank you for the clarification. Holding that the material you introduce about the behavior of Cberlet is relevant to a discussion of objectionable editing behavior and WP policy violations by him in general, I believe it is valid to make mention of it. At the minimum, and holding the practices to be similar, it would show that Cberlet's violations on the LVMI article were not isolated or uncharacteristic incidents for him, and that is sufficiently germane to retain at least some mention of it for the purpose of allowing other editors to review them. Thanks again for your consideration of this RfC and comments. Rangerdude 00:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam's "evidence" is immaterial to the causes of action listed in this RFC. Sam presenting irrelevant evidence here is a transparent attempt to insert himself into the fray and get in a few licks against Cberlet, nothing else. FeloniousMonk 23:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a RfC. I dispute this user's conduct. I provided evidence of such. End of story. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The merit of your dispute is in question. The evidence you offer has scant relevance to this RFC. And its actual value of your evidence is yet to be seen. Time will tell. FeloniousMonk 06:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Content distractions from personal friendships, recusal from mediations etc.
In the course of this RfC it has occurred to me that several of the editors stating opposition to the RfC's case and/or support for the rebuttal have strong personal relationships with one or both of the editors accused of violating Wikipedia policy. Among these, some have openly stated these relationships as the basis of their opposition to the RfC. While participation of all editors is welcome on an RfC, that personal relationships have been asserted as the basis for opposing it in place of a balanced objective consideration of the facts is very disconcerting. The persisting absence of any substantive case containing accurate documentation, specifics, and cited responses among the rebuttals to date is similarly indicative of this problem. As the two accused editors in this dispute are both prolific contributers to wikipedia and as one has administrator privileges, it is not unsurprising nor inherently problematic that both have personal friendships and allegiances with other editors here. That said, personal allegiances and friendships have little place in a dispute resolution proceeding as they distract away from the content of the proceeding and do little to resolve the existing disagreements between editors.

Given that a situation in which personal allegiances have exhibited themselves during the dispute resolution has emerged and given the possibility that this particular dispute may require future actions under the Dispute resolution process, among them mediation and, if necessary, arbitration or some further intervention, I have become increasingly concerned that the result will be to prolong the dispute itself and inhibit the reaching of a solution that is agreeable to all sides. Should this indeed become the situation and should this dispute necessitate further procedures such as mediation and/or arbitration, I must request that any contributer with strong personal and/or political allegiances to either User:Willmcw, User:Cberlet or both recuse him or herself from any administrative, mediator, arbitrator, or other related third party role in subsequent steps of this dispute resolution. According to Mediation such a recusal is proper in many such cases as mediators should be "independent, neutral and in no connection with any of the involved parties." Similarly per Arbitration policy Arbitrators who have a conflict of interest in the case "shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case." Thank you. Rangerdude 04:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Criticizing the very community you appeal to for assistance is not likely to help your case. FeloniousMonk 06:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So if your RFC doesn't get the reaction you're looking for, I guess the proper response is to blame the cabal. Gotcha. Rhobite 07:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Cabal?" I don't believe I ever suggested there was one nor do I see evidence of any. I do, however, see a handful of editors stating the fact that Cberlet and/or Willmcw are their personal friends as their sole reasons for opposing this RfC. As such comments are largely distracting to the dispute resolution process and as they indicate a personal conflict of interest in future dispute resolution procedures on this article if necessary, making due note of it and requesting the said persons to voluntarily recuse themselves upon that conflict in the event of either mediation or arbitration is entirely appropriate. As to the remainder of the RfC, it has been generally beneficial insofar as it has generated new participation at the article with an aim toward resolving the editing conflicts there, and I thank any and all editors who have done so in good faith. Of course there still are a small number of persons who, rather than contribute toward resolving the article's disputes prefer instead to linger here posting generally meaningless and unconstructive comments such as those found here and here, but that's a matter not worthy of substantive attention. Makes ya thankful that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rangerdude 07:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right of course, but I doubt they care. The wikipedia has degenerated into cliques and personality politics to an alarming degree. Reminds me of some sort of student council meeting at a uni. I feel a bit weird being here at all, since I happen to like books of reference for the education and authority they provide, rather than an opportunity to advance one ideology, or persecute another. Oh well, off to edit an encyclopedia. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a little unsettling to see them line up like that. Anyway for what it's worth, I think the only criticisms in the article are lightweight ones, no big deal if consensus insists they be presented in the article. Some editors may be too close to the topic to see this, but the criticisms and cited answers enhance the article's credibility. However, I see Rangerdude's point about the conduct problems, trouble is, when people think they've been endowed on the side of "true truth", bending or ignoring the rules becomes secondary. Wyss 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to View by JimWae
Cberlet & Willmcw have a history of functioning as tag-team editors, and I think that consequently it is appropriate to address their behavior jointly. They are also, in my view, unusually agressive POV pushers. --HK 21:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this from the person tossed off Wiki for months because he was a POV warrior for Lyndon LaRouche?--Cberlet 22:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * All I can find is that you and he both were named in an arbitration committee injunction enjoining the two of you from editing Lyndon Larouche articles. I mean, you've been the subject of arbitration for PoV warring before, and been banned from editing articles as a result. Why didn't you disclose that? Wyss 22:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the link...


 * And the applicable text...

Temporary injunction 1.1) Herschelkrustofsky (contribs), Weed Harper (contribs), C Colden (contribs), IP address 64.30.208.48 (contribs) are prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche, editing the talk pages on Template:LaRouche Talk creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement or adding LaRouche-related material to other articles pending resolution of this matter. User:Cberlet, User:Willmcw, and User:SlimVirgin are also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though they may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Arbitration pages relating to this case are not included. This includes editing by anonymous AOL accounts.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 on 27 January 2005.

......Wyss 23:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin (who was also cautioned for personal attacks) were named in the injunction too and ordered not to edit Larouche articles. The policy violations are noted. Wyss 23:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wyss, what do you mean that the "policy violations are noted"? Will and Chip violated no policies in relation to the LaRouche articles, and the arbcom case was not against them, nor did the arbcom find them in violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, you were formally cautioned for personal attacks. All the above were told to stop editing the article during the temporary injunction. User:Cberlet said HK was "tossed off" WP, which to a reasonable reader means "blocked." I think this was representative of distortion but it's not that big of a deal, I think we're finding a way to improve the article and arrive at consensus, which is why I'm here. Wyss 02:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wyss, these temp injunctions are used a lot, and all they mean is that all the editors subject to a dispute are asked to stop editing until the dispute is settled. Once the arbcom had ruled, Will, Chip, and I were allowed to continue editing the LaRouche pages, and Herschelkrustofsy was not. We brought the case, it was not brought against us; and all the punitive action was against HK, none of it against us. I was cautioned not to make personal attacks even when provoked, because I had called one of his sock puppets a "toxic troll". But your comment above was directed at Chip, not me. Will and Chip were not cautioned for anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, truly, it's ok. I never said they were cautioned and I was only trying to show how little distortions can set people off when they're in the midst of a dispute. Wyss 02:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Using the phrase "tossed off" was misleading. It was not an intentional slight, merely slang. I retract it.--Cberlet 02:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Tossed off... hmmm. It does have a nice ring :) Understood and thanks for clearing that up. Wyss 02:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, Herschelkrustofsky wasn't thrown off Wikipedia at all (why did you say he was?), but looks like he did abuse sockpuppets and got a flurry of formal cautions and probations along with an editing ban on Larouche stuff. Hardly a stellar record as an editor, but why did you exaggerate the sanctions? What else have you been less than forthcoming about? Wyss 23:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was deemed to have used sock puppets, and was banned for one year from editing any articles related to LaRouche, from having multiple accounts, or from inserting LaRouche material into any other article. As that was all he did here, it amounted to a total ban, and he stopped editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. It's also troubling that Cberlet's response to an editor who apparently concurs about his and Willmcw's POV pushing is not to address that issue but rather to make an exaggerated personal attack about an unrelated past event against the other editor. Whatever sanctions he may have had (along with the two subject editors in this RFC and another third editor who is among their leading advocates here), Herschelkrustofsky has just as much of a right as anybody else to comment on this RfC. And yet I'm the one who gets accused by these same types of "bullying" other commentators for simply posting a documented and fully cited self-defense rebuttal to an incendiary attack on my person and motives! Yes sir, I do believe a double standard is at play. Rangerdude 23:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, no, that wasn't those same types, that was me. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, Chip, Will and I were the ones who brought the case against Herschelkrustofsky. We were not subject to any punitive actions by the arbcom. They simply ruled that, until the dispute was settled, the articles at the center of it should not be edited by us, which is usual practise. Herschelkrustofsky was one of the worst POV offenders Wikipedia has had, and was the subject of two arbcom cases before he was banned from editing any articles related to Lyndon LaRouche for a year. His criticism of Will and Chip is purely in response to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin - thank you for your clarification, however in the interest of full disclosure the arbcom's ruling does indeed contain a warning against you regarding personal attacks reading "6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation" (adopted 5 to 1 to 1). Your comments on his motives here, accurate or not, could reasonably be construed as an attack and I would urge you to refrain from it. Rangerdude 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussions of Responses from main page

 * Don't request 'em if you don't want 'em, Rangerdude. Talk on the talk page, please. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment to Bishonen - The above is a mischaracterization, as in no way have I exhibited any desire to remove, or "not want," other comments. The section in which the comment by FuelWagon, and my rebuttal, are located is explicitly designated for views and endorsements. I simply exercised my right to state a counterview to a view in which another editor heavily mischaracterized my positions and attacked my person. If you disagree with this response you do not have to endorse it or even read it for that matter, but it is my right to respond. If you have something constructive to add that could help reconcile the LVMI article dispute I encourage you to post it. Thus far your contributions have been largely unimpressive in their material and generally distracting from the dispute's contents though, leading me to conclude that there is little additional value to be found in your activity here. Rangerdude 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting conclusion. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would add to the above the fact that Stephan Kinsella is NOT employed at the Mises Institute. I work here every day from 9-5, and I have NEVER seen him here outside of a conference. Stephan himself has stated and reiterated numerous times that he is not an employee, but rather an adjunct scholar (an unpaid position). Stephan Kinsella, as far as I can tell (and I'm relying on his own website for this information) is an IP attorney for Applied Optoelectronics. There is no chance of his becoming my "coworker" as Fuelwagon implies. Mr. Kinsella is a lawyer, and one whom I imagine to make far more money than I do from this non-profit organization. Additionally, I am not a faculty member; rather, I am basically part of the support staff. I catalog and shelve books, and I do some occasional editing. The suggestion, then, that Kinsella would ever be my colleague is laughable. I have never concealed the fact that I work at the Institute. I have also never reacted in a snotty or belligerent manner in response to a good faith edit by another editor. I am here to cooperate in the creation of an open encyclopedia, not to be name-called and accused of trying to secretly advance some agenda. I wear my affiliations on my sleeve, but I do not (unlike Chip Berlet) pretend that they some how make me specially authorized to blatantly disregard the input of other editors who are also acting in good faith. If the editors who are the subject of this RfC are truly acting in good faith, why would they persist in behavior that is both uncooperative and rude? Let's reason this out and actually produce a better article that doesn't push a PoV! If what Chip Berlet says about the Institute is true, why does he think that others will not be able to figure this out? Simply labelling the Institute as "racist" does nothing to educate Wiki-readers about any basis for such a claim. Let's describe the Institute in a factual, verifiable manner, and let end users decise for themselves what to think. DickClarkMises 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Rangerdude, you have lost control of your anger and are directing it anyone percieved to be against you. I found this RFC on the main RFC page. I have zero history with either of the two editors you asked for comments on, the three editors who endorsed the RFC, the Mises institute, the SPLC, or the articles about them. I came as a neutral party. I investigated the claims by both sides, looked at the diffs, looked at the articles, and provided comments as per your request (RFC => request for commetns). I did not focus strictly on your accusations against the two editors. Nor did I focus strictly on their responses against you. And I had no interest in combing through every post and counter post in a flame fest on various talk pages. I looked at the edits and the editors. And I commented on them.


 * Everyone brings their point of view along with them. It is part of being human. But you and Nskinsella have a POV that is clearly coming through your editing on wikipedia articles in violation of Neutral Point Of View, cite your sources, no original research, etc. And you need to stop. Whether anyone else violated any other policy is irrelevant. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Your edits clearly show your POV and it is unacceptable to wikipedia policy. That you turn this RFC into an attack on me after I provided comments about your editing behaviour is showing an inability to work with others, an inability to take constructive criticism, an inability to control your anger, and further suggests your POV is in charge of what you post.


 * If Cberlet published something on the SPLC website and then referenced it on the wikipedia article, then that may be a policy violation as well. But I don't care about policy so much as I care about how he would respond to comments on his behaviour and whether he would adjust or not. What I've seen of his edits are that they are of a nature that I would call neutral. Yours and Nskinsella's edits are of a nature that I would call POV pushing, your opinion on the subject has become a conflict of interest. You can all edit the article for all I care. But you and Nskinsella specifically need to learn to write for the enemy, and you need to learn what "neutral" really means, and you need to cite your sources, and you need to be open to criticism. Cberlet appears able to do this. You and Nsknisell do not. Your angry reaction to my criticism is not encouraging that you have the ability. That the Mises article turned into an SPLC attack article after criticism from the SPLC was inserted seems to follow a pattern similar to this RFC.


 * You asked for comments. I gave mine. Whether you take them to be insulting and react with anger and worsen the situation or whether you take them as constructive and improve the situation is up to you. FuelWagon 21:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon - You persist in your mischaracterizations as well as your selective neglect and inconsistency toward the disputes behavior. In no place did I accuse you of "having a history" with the two editors accused of misconduct in this RfC, and to imply as much is deceptive. Nor have I ever attempted to deny you of a right to comment as requested on this article. In fact, your "comment" still stands unaltered except for formatting changes made to bring it into conformity with other comment formats in this section. That said, the comment you did provide contained several personal implications against me including multiple explicit allegations in which you asserted that I had a conflict of interest for simply holding an openly admitted and disclosed libertarian viewpoint (something that is NOT prohibited by WP:NPOV any more than holding a liberal one is) and a bad faith insinuation that I am affiliated with the LVMI, despite repeated disclosures that I have no such connection. The same comment also contained several characterizations of my edits that I find to be severe misrepresentations of what actually happened (and have documented above accordingly). It also demonstrated a very clear and unusual inconsistency in which you outright lambasted two other editors for their fully volunteered and disclosed affiliations with the LVMI who, to the best of my knowledge, have carefully avoided promoting their own work on the LVMI article while simultaneously giving a complete pass to another editor on the other side of this conflict who has just as strong professional affiliations with the SPLC, but who failed to volunteer that information and actively promoted a "source" link to his own work. The truly unusual thing here is that you seem surprised, after posting a highly incendiary and personal attack on three editors including myself, that we reacted with disapproval and stated that disapproval - as is our right of rebuttal - in followup responses to your attack. RfC permits you to comment on disputes, FuelWagon, but it does not guarantee that your comments will not be exhibited to cross scrutiny. In fact, when you go out of your way to make comments replete with unfair personal insinuations against editors such cross scrutiny should be expected - those personal insinuations being a far greater source of anger and worsening the situation than any response made in self defense to them. One statement you posted above merits particular attention. You write "I don't care about policy so much as I care about how he would respond to comments on his behaviour and whether he would adjust or not," yet this seemingly indicates a miscomprehension of the entire purpose for this RfC which is a complaint about (1) policy violations by Cberlet and (2) his rude and stubborn refusal to adjust his edits when those policy violations were politely and explicitly brought to his attention on the LVMI talk page. It is precisely those two items that you were _requested_ to _comment_ on as this page's introduction makes clear, yet instead you chose to lob incendiary bombs at the motives and affiliations, both real and falsified, of the editors who concurred with the case on the aforementioned two items. Now you seem to be desiring an exemption from response when the editors you assaulted with attacks on motive and false insinuations attempt to defend themselves, but that simply isn't how wikipedia works. A request to comment is not a guarantee of freedom from subsequent comments. Rangerdude 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Rangerdude, an RFC is a mechanism intended to resolve a dispute. It is not a place to "build a case" against an editor to bring punitive measures againt them. If you want punishment, you need to talk to an administrator or go to arbcom. An RFC will do nothing but generate comments. If you are interested in resolving this dispute, then take said comments, find whatever truths are contained theirin about your editing behaviour and improve your editing skills. If you want to prove someone "wrong", an RFC is not built to rule "right/wrong". RFC's are intended to be positive, results oriented, not punitive. You will get no "conviction" here. Countering every comment you disagree with is missign the point of an RFC. RFC's are for editors who've come to a standstill and need outside views to get unstuck. It only works if the editors in question all work in good faith. This means Cberlet, Willmcw, you and everyone else involved, need to be operating in good faith for an RFC to accomplish anything. i.e. someone comments on your behaviour, you adjust your behaviour. Someone comments on Cberlet's behaviour. Cberlet adjusts his behaviour. I can promise you that your edits have pleny of room for improvement regarding NPOV, cite sources, balanced criticism, etc. Whether someone announces their affiliations on their talk pages or not is irrelevant to whether or not their edits are POV or not. Your edits were POV. If you cannot accept a single fault on your part, then the RFC approach will not work. Someone will need to comb through every edit from now backto the beginning of it all, look at all the posts/counter posts, and rule on who is right, who is wrong, and who gets a pass, and who gets blocked or banned. Arbitration rules right/wrong and can punish editors. Before you go down that path, though, I will warn you that your recent edits will not allow you to emerge unscathed. Despite you insistent claims to the contrary, your edits are not neutral, sources are not cited, points of view are not balanced, and original research may have occurred. Declaring your affilitions on your user pages is irrelevant to whether you edits are neutral and within other wikipedia guidelines. I can tell you yours were not. If you take that one comment and learn to edit within NPOV, then you'll likely find this situation resolves itself. If you want to blame this entire thing on someone else, if you refuse to acknowledge you had any part in creating an irresolvable dispute, well, then arbitration will be a rude awakening for you. Stop worrying about what someone else did that was "wrong" and try to see if there isn't anything thing at all that you could do that would make you a better editor. FuelWagon 22:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * FuelWagon - You need to review the Dispute Resolution procedure for Wikipedia. Were I to seek arbitration at this point before conducting an RfC into user conduct as this one is plainly categorized and designated, the request would likely be denied on account of the dispute resolution procedure not being followed. RfC comes first, then mediation, then arbitration. As to the purposes of RfC, those explicitly designated to apply to user conduct are indeed a place for presenting a case against editors in violation of WP policy. This is all per Requests for comment which states of User Conduct RFCs that they may serve "not as a simple "request for comment" but as the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor." Per this same policy, the special case of User Conduct RFCs is created "for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." As you appear to be mistaking this type of RfC for a normal content dispute RfC in which article contents and comments about them are the sole matter of discussion, I urge you to review this key distinction and conduct yourself accordingly. You are correct that it does not generally produce punishment in itself absent subsequent steps such as arbitration, but nowhere on this RfC have I advocated a blocking or similar penalty for either of the offending users. Rather I have sought outside commentary aimed at taming their excesses with a hope that sufficient attention will be generated to the LVMI article itself to help resolve the edit warring their behavior has produced. At this point I can also state that this goal has met with a limited degree of success, primarily due to the fact that it attracted new editor input on LVMI among those persons who made good faith reviews of this RfC and, rather than lingering around its discussion sections to post incendiary bombs against other editors as an unnamed few have opted to do, chose to visit that article and make positive moderating contributions to the development of the article and the resolution of its POV disputes on the "Criticisms" section. As to your characterization of my conduct, forgive me if I once again express skepticism in the judgment of an editor who has both misrepresented that conduct in aforementioned edits and demonstrated inconsistency in his evaluation of other conduct by editors on the other side of this dispute. While I do not profess to have a perfect record and readily concede that viewpoints are often impossible to completely remove each and every time (which is why on Wikipedia we check each other's work), I am confident that my conduct in editing this article has approached nowhere near the level of intentional disruption and personal abuse exhibited by the two editors who are subject of this RfC. And it is on that basis that I feel justified in stating the case I have constructed above. As I anticipate you will respond unfavorably to this assertion, I will conclude by posing to you the same question that I posed to another below regarding a specific act of conduct that is in many ways the most important violation at the focus of this RfC. If you can answer me this without yielding your attention or objectivity to the personalities involved and political loyalties exhibited, the following question should suffice in determining whether or not the behavior of the accused editors was indeed disruptive. "Do completely unrelated quotations of David Duke have any reasonable or responsible basis for being placed in the middle of the Ludwig von Mises Institute article?" If it cannot be shown that they do, then the multiple attempts to add them by User:Willmcw et al were disruptive, thus making the complaint against them valid. Rangerdude 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * that they may serve "not as a simple "request for comment" but as the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor." LOL. I put that sentence in the RFC page. you missed the first couple words though, the part that says "some may view". An RFC is a soft requirement for entering arbitration. You don't actually have to have an RFC. That I've tried to get it removed from the punitive channel of dispute resolution is another story, but suffice it to say, I don't think I'm the one who needs to review the dispute resolution process.


 * I'm just gonna spell this out to you with an analogy here. You and about four other editors are like folks driving down the highway. You saw someone cut off one of your friends. It was a legal maneuvar according to traffic law, but you didn't like it. So, you floored it, and caught up with the guy, pulled in front of him and slammed on your brakes. He manages to avoid a head on collision. He then changes lane and cuts off another one of your friends. This time you call your fellow drivers on a cell phone, weave through traffic to catch up with the driver who offended you, and attempt to box him in and push him off the highway. Several other uninvolved drivers see what's happening, move in to block you, and allow the offending driver to remain on teh highway. All of this is caught on cameras that line the entire freeway. What you're telling me is that your next plan of action is to take the problem to the police and get the guy you didn't like.... arrested? I don't know how to break this to you, but he didn't break any traffic laws. You did. He may have cut in front of you and ticked you off, but it was a legal maneuvar. Your speeding, weaving through lanes without signaling, and other maneuvars, though, were illegal. That you were driving around with an open container of alcohal doesn't help. If you are simply doing an RFC as a formality so you can get into arbitration, the term you need to familiarize yourself with is pyrrhic victory.


 * I think you and your friends are relatively new to wikipedia, which is the equivalent of 16 year olds who just got their license, which is fine. Everyone is new at some point. But you don't seem to realize that you're new. You don't know the difference between the rules of the road and behaviour you consider rude or offensive. You're attempting to convict someone of being rude when you broke nearly every traffic law in the book before coming before the judge. If you bring this to arbitration, this will turn into a very messy, slow-motion train wreck with you in the engineer's seat, while some of your friends furiously shovel coal into the boiler. That is the only destination on your present course.


 * I suggest you consider this incident to be one of those vehicular "close calls" that you talk about when you're older, one of those stories that contain the phrases "my life flashed before my eyes. I thought I was gonna die", but by virtue of telling it, it means you survived it, learned from it, and became smarter drivers because of it. Your current trajectory will end with someone posting flowers on your user page, wishing you weren't gone. That isn't a threat from me. I have no admin powers. I just know a driver possessed by road rage when I see one. At some point that sort of driver is gonna wrap themselves around a telephone pole. Take a break. give yourself a day to breathe. turn off the computer. Don't even read the comments for 24 hours. cool off. interact with some real people in some way that has nothing to do with this stuff. FuelWagon 00:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever efforts you have made or are currently making to change the way RfCs are conducted are of no concern to me or to this proceeding, FuelWagon. Nor do I require lecturing on the "rules" by a contributer who flings incendiary personal allegations and venom yet cannot be bothered to accurately represent the documented course of events in a dispute, to consider reasonably presented evidence in a calm and responsible manner, or to even properly document the rule "violations" he repeatedly alleges against other contributers who respond to the aforementioned venom in self defense. Telling of your bias in this matter is the fact that you cannot even bring yourself to address the major charges of the RfC such as the David Duke incident and instead respond only with goofy analogies and more personal invective. Predict whatever you like, FuelWagon, but this RfC can and will proceed in a proper and responsible fashion be it with or without your assistance. Given that, despite the substantial verbiage you've written to date on this subject, virtually no real material contributions toward resolving the dispute have arisen from what you post, I'm inclined to believe that the latter will be the case and accordingly have little further interest in what you have to say beyond pausing again to defend myself from your false insinuations and verbal abuse should the need arise. Drive safely. Rangerdude 00:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You need to learn the difference between comments on an editor's behaviour and comments on their personal character. Comments on character can be considered a personal attack. "so and so is a loser". Comments on behaviour are not personal attacks. "so and so violated NPOV". I've made no personal attacks on you, I commented on your behavioiur. Your edits violated NPOV. Those comments do not qualify as "incendiary personal allegations and venom". Nskinsella inserted highly disputable criticism into an article without providing an outside source, which could also qualify as violating NPOV and no original research if he generated the criticism himself. That does not qualify as "false insinuations and verbal abuse". If you don't learn that difference, then the arbitration committee may be a rude awakening for you. FuelWagon 14:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * this RfC can and will proceed in a proper and responsible fashion be it with or without your assistance This comment seems to reinforce my opinion that you are using this RFC not as a means to resolve this dispute in and of itself, but as some paperwork to fill out before you can proceed to arbitration. An RFC can resolve a dispute if the parties involved are willing to admit they had some contribution to creating the dispute in teh first place. I have not seen one comment by you on this RFC that acknowledges that you had any part in creating this dispute. Everything I've read is using lawyer-like language to attempt to blame the entire problem on Cberlet and Willmcw. You are not using this RFC to resolve anything. You are treating it like paperwork that needs to be filed to get into arbcom, as a court proceeding to build a case against those you've accused. And whether or not you like my silly analogy, it still holds that even if Cberlet or Willmcw changed lanes without signaling, you were doing 50 over the speed limit, caused three fender benders, and nearly wiped out some pedestrians in your attempt to bring them to whatever "justice" you think arbcom will get you. FuelWagon 14:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I do agree they could have learned how to "write for the enemy", but do see clear evidence of policy abuses that warrant the RfC. Both sides have exhibited polarized PoVs IMO. Wyss 21:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if people who are quick to use the term racist are aware of how self-defeating it can be. On the other hand, it can't be fun to be anywhere near the receiving end of that invective, given that in current cultural subtext it's really saying, "you're a genocidal pro-slavery criminal, uhm, and likely a child-abuser too." Wyss 21:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wyss - Thank you for you many good faith efforts to resolve this dispute and many your contributions to editing the LVMI article, which I hereby endorse as well. I am the first to admit that I lean libertarian in my beliefs, and have little doubt that the other editors who concurred would do the same. As with any perspective, it is an inescapable reality that it will sometimes exhibit itself in our contributions and we try to minimize this wherever possible. It has always been my understanding of Wikipedia's consensus principle that the editing process tends to "check" itself when one perspective or another is overemphasized in the article. As such, editors when non-libertarian viewpoints could theoretically improve the LVMI article greatly. My complaint here however, and I believe you understand it well, is that instead of moderate counterbalancing aimed at the elimination of bias, these two editors have attempted to insert biases to the other extreme and in many times have done so in clearly bad faith. Anyone who doubts this need only ask himself the following question: "Do completely unrelated quotations of David Duke have any reasonable or responsible basis for being placed in the middle of the Ludwig von Mises Institute article?" If it cannot be shown that they do, then the multiple attempts to add them by User:Willmcw et al were disruptive, thus making the complaints against him valid. Rangerdude 21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Plainly incendiary, baiting, unhelpful and unencyclopedic. Why not start quoting Mr Himmler, too? The flip side is, using those un-rigorous, unscholarly tactics as arguments presents weaknesses that can easily be neutralized (and even turned against the PoV warrior) by a skilled WP editor ;) Wyss 22:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct the record
For the record, I did not post the original cite to the SPLC articles into the LvMI page. See Diff. I kept adding more detail because fans of LvMI kept complaining that the SPLC criticisms lacked merit, or they could not find the quotes used in the SPLC articles (apparently not bothering to use Google to find out that they came from the LvMI website), or complained that the quotes were taken out of context. Each time I expanded the underlying quote, made links more direct, etc. This fantastic rewriting of what happened on the page can be refuted simply by visiting the main page and the discussion page.

According to Rangerdude, I engaged in a "policy violation." by posting my own article. I did not post my own article. According to Rangerdude, I displayed a "rude and stubborn refusal to adjust his edits when those policy violations were politely and explicitly brought to his attention on the LVMI talk page." There were no policy violations. I continuously tried to edit the material in different ways to meet the complaints being hurled at me. See Diff.--Cberlet 02:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The assertion that Cberlet did not link to his own article in the LVMI edits he made is a blatant falsehood. He indisputably did so in his edit located here, to wit:
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center found other bigotry in the article, noting that Rothbard claimed it was primarily "Jewish women, after raising funds from 'top Jewish financiers,' [who] agitated for child labor laws," and that the "dominant tradition" of these women activsts was lesbianism.  
 * The article located at and added by Cberlet in this edit was authored by Chip Berlet writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center as may be plainly seen on its byline located here. Rangerdude 20:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actual research reveals chronology
Rangerdude has gotten the chronology and my actions flat out wrong.

The first peripheral page text criticism of my article freelanced to the SPLC magazine Intelligence Report is on 22 July 2005
 * But David Horowitz 's DiscovertheNetworks.org critizes the SPLC for "Exaggerat[ing] the prevalence of racism to drum up fundraising revenue" and "Brands groups that do not share its leftwing agendas as 'hate groups.'" [1] http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6989> DiscovertheNetworks.org also claims: "As part of its transparently one-sided approach to outing alleged hate groups, the SPLC is not above flinging fictional charges against its ideological adversaries."

If one follows the link, one finds a criticism of my article by Horowitz.

On 23 July 2005 Willmcw addes the first actual direct link to my article. Diff.
 * The LVMI has drawn criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center  (SPLC), itself a controversial group. They say that the LVMI favors an elitist society and is nostalgic for the time when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."[3] 

Rangerdude at 18:17, 23 July 2005, edited the text linked to this cite to my article before I ever touched the text on the LvMI page. Diff. The link was there for Rangerdude to see, and it remained there through many edits.

I start editing the page at 23:12, 23 July 2005  At this time the cite to my article, added by Willcw, is still on the page.

Dh003i removes text and link to my article at 07:27, 24 July 2005 Diff. After that, at various times, I reinserted various text linked to my article in repeated attempts to make changes to the text that responded constructively to the many demands being made by the persons making this complaint.--Cberlet 22:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of location of discussions

 * Rangerdude, please use either this discussion section or the talk page to bully the people who comment, if that's what you feel you must do. Don't use their "Views and endorsements" sections. Seriously, do you think your "rebuttals" and "counterviews" (good one!) are part of the "view" each heading refers to? Or that they're "endorsements"? Why are you turning this page into such a mess? Why don't you listen to what anybody tries to tell you? Do you think the point of an RfC is for you to listen to yourself praising your own politeness? Can't you just do that in your head? Bishonen | talk 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could try setting him a better example rather than employ your usual passive-aggressive bullshit with him? Can't you just make your snide comments in your head? The point of an RfC is for everyone to have a good bitch and get it out of their system. No one seriously expects the targets to reform. All heat, not much light. -- Grace Note


 * Agreed, interspersing signatures with rebuttals is improper use of this page. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps comments should be moved to the discussion page, including any I've made. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bishonen - As the above exchange with FuelWagon pertains directly to the subject matter of this RfC and contains multiple incendiary remarks and allegations about users who have endorsed and certified the complaints stated in the RfC, its material and sourced responses to its allegations are statements of views on the RfC itself and thus germane to the section where they are included. As your own participation in this RfC has produced little more than distraction to attempts at resolving the LVMI article differences by editors who conduct themselves more responsibly than your own contributions indicate, I am disinclined to believe that your continued commentary here serves any constructive purpose toward resolving the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. Therefore I must decline your suggestion for want of merit or genuine intention. Thanks - Rangerdude 22:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That said, in the interest of both space and formatting I will gladly remove subsequent discussion sections between myself, FuelWagon, and other users regarding the response and counterresponse in question to the discussion page. I would also urge the participants in those discussions to continue any exchanges there. Rangerdude 22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Rangerdude, criticizing the motives of people who oppose you, or support the others, probably isn't helping your case. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin - given your repeated profession of personal allegiances and friendships with the two editors who are subject of this RfC on user conduct as the explicitly stated basis for your decision to oppose the RfC's charges, I am doubtful that anything further that I could do in any direction could help my case before either yourself or the handful of other editors who have expressed similar sentiments to your own regarding the same subject editors. That is why I have politely requested that you recuse yourself from any mediation, arbitration, or administrator role - should this dispute resolution require such - in the event that the problem necessitates pursuing additional steps in the resolution process on the basis that this friendship would create a conflict of interest. As to the issue of motives, I can safely say that the specific contributers I have questioned who are thus the object of your concern in this request have already sufficiently engaged in the same upon myself in filing this RfC, and all with little constructive benefit to resolving the LVMI article's disputes or problems. That being the circumstance, I find my case before the same persons in a situation analogous to the aforementioned incidents of professed personal allegiances including your own, to wit: there isn't much of anything I could do in any direction to help my case before them. As wikipedia is not a personality-driven democracy but rather operates around matters of content per its expressly stated policies, the situation with these editors is of little bearing to me and I accordingly feel content in defending myself, as needed, from the incendiary attacks of persons whose aim is not to resolve this dispute but rather intensify it. As always, thank you for your concern. Rangerdude 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the above means, but I'm not a mediator or member of the arbcom, so the issue of recusal is moot, and as an admin, no I won't recuse myself from dealing with you as an admin, but as there's currently no issue requiring admin attention, it's also somewhat moot. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion of RfC
After I responded to a comment by Rangerdude on the project page, he chose to move my response here, leaving his comment unanswered and leaving my response hanging without an antecedent. For the record, I was responding to a comment in which Rangerdude wrote in part: "I am content to withdraw the RfC within 24 hours of this posting for the reason of mootness in light of subsequent revisions, pending that the new revisions are allowed to remain and attempts to restore the original problematic edits do not resume. . . .  Rangerdude 05:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)". The paragraph below is what I posted under that comment. JamesMLane 06:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You can't impose such conditions. All editors (including Willmcw and Cberlet) remain free to remove the recent revisions that you praise (including mine), make edits that you personally regard as "problematic", or otherwise follow their own judgment.  If you believe that a particular edit is ill-advised, it will be more fruitful for you to bring it to the article's talk page, not here.  This RfC and its talk page represent a 119-kb diversion of users' time from the task of improving the encyclopedia. JamesMLane 06:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * James - you are misunderstanding my statement. I do not seek to impose any "condition" to restrict you or or the editors who were subject to this RfC from editing the article. I am simply stating that I will end the RfC after 24 hours, holding that the disruptive behavior that necessitated it in the first place is not engaged in. In other words, if Willmcw and Cberlet do not resume their attempts to quote David Duke and insert cheap shot allegations of racism into the article, I'll more than happily end the RfC. As you should know very clearly from the LVMI talk page, I attempted many times to address those editors about their non-neutral and in many cases disruptive edits (e.g. the David Duke incident) on that article's talk page long before beginning this RfC and met with minimal success and substantial hostility from them both (in fact I even informed one of them several times on the talk page that his refusal to engage in discussions there would soon make this RfC necessary before I posted it - he shunned them and dared me to go ahead with the RfC!) As to concluding this RfC, once again I am ready and willing to do so in 24 hours. I will, however, resume the dispute resolution process against these two editors if they resume the disruptive behavior that necessitated it in the first place. Rangerdude 06:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What this boils down to, is that as long as Willmcw and I do not put material into the article that Rangerdude disagrees with, he will act in a constructive manner. LvMI openly tolerates material on its website that some people, including me, think is racist, sexist, and invokes stereotypes about Jews that are insensitive and echo historic antisemitic claims. As such, LvMI mainstreams bigotry. That's one of the criticisms made in the SPLC article. I stand by what I wrote and what SPLC published. I did not put the material I wrote on the LvMI page, I only defended the exisiting material against false claims calling its accuracy into question. Saying you disagree with me is one thing.  Saying I cooked quotes or took them out of context is quite another. Informing me that I will face an RfC for placing accurate cites and additional material from published sources on a page I am editing is bullying, plain and simple, no matter how courteous the prose. It is censorship.--Cberlet 11:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Chip - what I am saying is that if you or Willmcw attempt to reinsert such plainly disruptive material as David Duke quotes into this article, then yes you can bet on myself or another initiating a new RfC as that material violates Wikipedia's NPOV and source citation policies. If you do not intend to resume disruption via David Duke quotes etc., you have nothing to worry about. As to your claim that you did not self-cite on the LVMI page, this is simply false as you did indeed add a link to your own article here. Rangerdude 20:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Conduct is one thing, quietly editing according to WP policy is another altogether. Please place criticisms in the criticism section as you like (with cites). IMO the existing criticisms aren't scholarly anyway (encyclopedic and informative though). Since references to the Confederacy or Hitler are problematic at best, some documented questions or criticisms of the economic thesis of LvMI would be way helpful to curious readers. Meanwhile everyone's urged to stick by the groundrules on the talk page and I think we'll have an article that's useful to readers from all PoVs. Wyss 16:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

outside views instructions
Rangerdude, I noticed you deleted my comments because I didn't follow your "instructions" to put all further replies on the talk page. Since following "instructions" are so important to you, I figured I pull the RFC into compliance by deleting any comments under the "outside view" subsection that did not follow the RFC instructions


 * These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

If you wish to ressurect the deleted comments, feel free to put them on the discussion page here. The point of an RFC is to get neutral outside comments from uninvolved editors, not to bring in new editors who can then be attacked by one side or another. That is why the RFC instructions say what they say. FuelWagon 20:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to demonstrate a point WP:POINT. This RfC is in the process of ending per the announcement you are attempting to delete, which indicated that it had served its purposes and would end in 24 hours from posting the announcement. Further removal of this information will be treated as vandalism aimed at unduly extending the RfC. Rangerdude 20:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not file an RFC to make a point or to punish an editor. Do not abuse the RFC process by attacking all commenters that disagree with you. FuelWagon 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take your moving one of your comments to the newly created announcements section, to mean you agree your comments did not in fact belong in the "outside views" section. Thank you. FuelWagon 20:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to FuelWagon by Rangerdude
FuelWagon's view of the controversy as expressed here appears to be extremely one-sided, as it completely neglects multiple attempts by Willmcw and Cberlet to add several paragraphs of material favorable to the SPLC's POV. It is troubling and indicative of personal inconsistency that FuelWagon would assert the presence of a "conflict of interest" against two editors who voluntarily and openly disclosed their affiliations with LVMI while simultaneously neglecting the fact that another editor taking the opposite view, which he defends, has actually published partisan political attacks on the LVMI and attempted to insert links to his very own material into the LVMI article for the purpose of criticizing LVMI  while being less than forthright about his authorship. To my knowledge, neither User:Nskinsella nor User:DickClarkMises has attempted to insert off-site material from the LVMI that he personally authored into this article. User:Cberlet on the other hand has linked to materials that he personally authored for and published with the Southern Poverty Law Center and furthermore he did not disclose at the time of the addition that the source he cited was his own.

Just as troubling is the fact that this contributer has made a not-so-subtle insinuation against me personally, alleging a personal affiliation with the LVMI or, at least, uncertainty that suggests a personal affiliation. I have openly noted many times here and elsewhere that I have absolutely no connections to the LVMI, my only thing in common with them being that we share a libertarian outlook on some political issues. To make such an insinuation in spite of this disclosure plainly violates Assume good faith. Just as revolting is the fact that this same editor has accused me of having a "conflict of interest" for simply expressing a viewpoint of the LVMI that isn't consumed with bashing them. Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting people from editing articles simply because they are libertarians, and the fact that another editor would claim this to constitute a "conflict of interest" (and all the while ignoring the vocal partisanship of two editors who hail from the political left) smacks of viewpoint discrimination.

A simple review of the diffs cited also plainly reveals that FuelWagon has misrepresented many of my edits there. He accuses me of deleting "the vast majority of the criticism section" added by Cberlet and purports that the objections I stated in the edit summary (which also clearly and repeatedly directed editors to the talk page for more details about the problems and reasons for this edit ) did not apply. In fact, I had described the problems with this section (which was added moments before by Cberlet and cited off site articles that he himself had authored) in a detailed multi-paragraph 4 point description containing multiple references to the Wikipedia policies it violated. As may be also seen in this talk page posting, I politely approached Cberlet on this subject and asked him to bring his edits into compliance with policies there before restoring them. Cberlet reacted to this with great personal hostility and with a demonstrated unwillingness to cooperate with these polite requests, as is documented at the beginning of this RfC. Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistently-applied "conflict of interest" allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accuracy of FuelWagon's take on this matter.

Users who endorse this sign here
 * Rangerdude 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wyss 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (I don't see much effort at conciliation and consensus towards peaceful encyclopedia writing here on the part of FuelWagon, rather lots of confrontation and attempts at intimidation, while Rangerdude seems to at least be making progress at approaching the problem through WP-wide editing techniques and policy)


 * Wow, I'm a sub-RFC on a two-person RFC. Three editors in one. That has got to be a record. FuelWagon 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm? No attempt to reconcile or diffuse confrontation? No concerns about why Rangerdude (PoV warrior that he has surely been, but not a sock, not a vandal or troll) feels so overwhelmed that he's brought this to RfC? Wyss 23:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure I'm concerned for Rangerdude et al. This is turning into a massive, slow-motion train wreck with him at the controls and several of his friends shoveling coal. I assure you, I have nothing but concern at the moment. FuelWagon 00:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please move any further commentary to the discussion page. Since you seem preoccupied with wreck analogies, allow me to note that wagons filled with fuel tend to exhibit volatile characteristics under tension, and I wouldn't want to see one collide with somebody here who was actually working constructively to find a solution to this dispute. Or could it be that this particular wagon simply arrived to toss fuel on an existing fire? Rangerdude 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments on SlimVirgin's endorsement of outside view by Bishonen moved to Talk
Wyss, you just deleted my endorsement. 
 * Argh! Not intentional. There was a server problem but I don't know how it happened. I'm sorry. Wyss 20:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * This should probably be separated into two RfCs. Sam, for example, seems to be endorsing it against Cberlet, but not Willmcw. We also need, for each of them, diffs showing clear examples of attempts to resolve the dispute by two of the certifiers, and it must be the same dispute. SlimVirgin (talk)  19:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - RfC's on the same article where two or more contributers are accused of the same WP policy violations are not uncommon. Sam's endorsement of the portions against Cberlet may be easily distinguished by the fact that he explicitly noted just that, making further separation unnecessary. I also count at least 3 users involved in cited diffs among the certifiers right now, and other diffs could be added from talk page efforts that have happened since then. If you desire I will log them as well. Rangerdude 20:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article RfC, but an RfC against editors, which is more serious. Regarding the diffs, they need to show evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute, not of the dispute itself. You need to show diffs from two of the certifiers that they tried and failed to resolve the same dispute with Cberlet. Then you need to do the same for Willmcw and within 48 hours of the RfC being filed. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply reviewing recent past RfC's against editors shows multiple cases where the RfC addresses two editors. Multiple diffs that I believe to show attempts to inform both of these editors of their NPOV and civility violations have been included for each, and presently the RfC I posted has certification from myself and two other editors involved in those disputes, and all within less than 24 hours of the RfC's creation. If you disagree with the RfC's merits and can counter the multiple documented cases of personal attacks and POV pushing by both of these editors, you are free to endorse differently on this page and discuss pertinent issues on the talk page. Rangerdude 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)