Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw

message: __TOC__
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sam Spade?

message: 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 </wiki/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 </wiki/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] <http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106> 
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)
thread_title: Actual research reveals chronology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Conclusion of RfC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: #Rangerdude 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: #Wyss 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: outside views instructions

message: 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: #Wyss 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response to FuelWagon by Rangerdude