Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence

message: A large part of user:Rangerdude's complaint against me concerns his allegation of wikistalking. On the evidence page it is covered in "February 6 to Present" in 125 words with no evidence. Instead, there is a link to a 6500-word page user page with more than 50 diffs. I previously responded to that complaint in RfC/Rangerdude back in June, but it has been updated many times since then. If the charge is being made as a part of this arbitration then I would appreciate it if the evidence could appear on the arbitration evidence page, rather than on a user page where I cannot respond. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be happy to detail the 50-something articles you have stalked me to on the evidence page. I have not added them yet though as it takes time to transfer every diff over and format it. I am also waiting for the format of this arbitration to be corrected to reflect the vote of the ArbCom, which indicated that this RfAr was to be merged into the first RfAr at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin - not the other way around as has been done. Once this is corrected, any evidence listing will be made at the appropriate place on the listing there. Rangerdude 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the ArbCom chooses to do is their own affair. I think that it would be best if we do not move things around on our own. In previous discussions and dispute resolution procedures involving Rangerdude there have been instances of moving and merging comments written by others. It'd be better if that didn't happen in this case too.  Thanks, -Willmcw 08:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the votes, the ArbCom chose to merge this case into the other one. That the opposite happens thus appears to be an honest mistake. I've already alerted the Arbcom members to it and hope that it can be addressed in short order. Also, please refrain from bad faith insinuations about merging comments outside of the arbitration itself. Rangerdude 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: *Willmcw has in some cases even incorrectly identified other IP edits as having been mine (RD)
If I have mis-indentified any IPs as having been used by the editor known as "Rangerdude" please let me know and I will remove them. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: Earlier on this page, SlimVirgin castigates Rangerdude with these words: "You see conspiracies and cliques everywhere: because people jointly disagree with you, they must be in cahoots, and if they're in cahoots, it must be in some way illegitimate, dodgy, underhand." 
"Conspiracy theorist" is, of course, a pejorative, and is used to suggest that the charges could not be serious. I submit that in fact, the existence of WikiCliques, the abuse of admin powers, and the selective enforcement of Wikipedia policy guidelines are the most serious problem that Wikipedia faces. These forms of corruption have the effect of negating the NPOV policy, which is supposed to be central to Wikipedia. And they are decidedly illegitimate, dodgy, and underhand.
Politically, I am probably closer to SlimVirgin than I am to Rangerdude. However, I applaud Rangerdude for addressing a festering problem with energy and rigor. --HK 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The importance of this case 

message: *Willmcw has stated that he monitors Rangerdude's edits.
There's been a request that a "finding of fact"  be made about the above statement. Since there has been no accusation of "monitoring edits", and since doing so violate no Wikipedia policy or guideline, may I ask why this finding is needed? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly. While there is no wikipedia policy against monitoring edits in and of itself, there is a wikipedia guideline against wikistalking, which  pertains to monitoring edits for the purpose of harassment and disruption. The wikistalking guideline actually spells this out quite nicely. According to its provisions, "reading a user's contribution log" is not wikistalking in itself - it only becomes wikistalking when done "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." Also according to this provision, the distinction between simply monitoring and wikistalking is the presence of a disruptive intent: "The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." Since wikistalking has indeed been alleged of you in this case, Will, it is necessary to first state whether you have indeed taken it upon yourself to monitor my edits before taking up the question whether or not you did so for disruptive reasons "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." Once the determination is made whether or not you follow my edits, a determination can then be made on whether or not that action also disrupted thus violating the wikistalking guideline. Rangerdude 08:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want break things out that way, I suppose it makes a certain sense. Since I've made a wikistalking charge against you, I'll add an additional request. -Willmcw 10:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding of fact 

message: I've added to this evidence page the remainder of the major material that I have collected. Other editors may have further additions. Otherwise this case seems to be well-described and ready to move to the next phase of arbitration. -Willmcw 11:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to wait a little longer, as new evidence has emerged from several of the recent discussions. I also think we should wait until the other arbitrators have had a chance to review the case and work on the workshop page before moving to the next stage without their participation. Right now, only one Arbcom member has participated so it seems to me that it is still too early to close evidence. Rangerdude 06:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up to the ArbCom, of course, but this case was accepted over a month ago and it is now the oldest in "evidence".  I note that ArbCom members participate sporadically in the /Workshop pages, and cases don't typically wait on everybody to respond to every point. If any editor has additional evidence then this is probably the time to add it. Due to the contributions of many, including myself, these pages are already very long. The /Evidence page alone now amounts to over 25,000 words and 494 diffs. (Maybe these multi-multi-party arbitrations are too complex?). Do we think it needs to be longer? What's left to cover? -Willmcw 10:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Complex multi-user arbitrations involving multiple issues will naturally take longer to hear than simple arbitrations. This case is complex and encompasses a lot of issues and users. Most of the other current Arbcom cases do not, so it's expected they will move faster. Right now I don't see a reason why we should speed this one up simply because you decided you were done adding evidence. Since it takes time to read evidence and since ongoing workshop discussions have produced new issues for consideration, taking it slowly is important to ensuring a fair hearing. Rangerdude 23:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence phase

message: I'm relatively new on WP, as I've been a member for only about a year. Somehow I stumbled from the current events "unrest in France" article through the user pages of a few folks, onto this RfA. My question arises from the nature of the discussion here, but I promise I ask in good faith and since I've got no experience with any of the folks involved, I'm 
Here is my question: What method of checks and balances exists in Wikipedia for making sure that a cabal of admins doesn't form a group to push away (or ban) common (i.e. powerless) editors such as myself, if the admins are displaying a certain POV that the common users attempt to restore NPOV status to - in the ultimate example, what if every admin on WP had the same POV about a specific topic? No user or even group of users could truly stand against that, since they would simply be banned, so long as all the other admins took the side against those common users, correct? I ask this because I've seen several cases where a user's name shows in red (I'm assuming this denotes that they're no longer a user) in comments they've signed, where they have spoken out against edits by another, but it appears that in many of those cases the user happened to take issue to something that a group of admins had a specific POV about - a POV which, thankfully, usually showed up in talk pages rather than articles.  I'm truly sorry to clutter up this discussion with my question, but it came to mind while reading this RfA and remembering the red names on the discussion page for the "unrest in France" article, among other places. Thanks for taking the time on little ol' me! GHoosdum 21:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to mention that TenOfAllTrades dropped me a line on my talk page to let me know that I was making an incorrect assumption regarding users with red links. I appreciate the clarification! Since it appears my question was partially based on an assumption I made incorrectly, I feel quite dumb for even thinking it now! GHoosdum 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although your assumption was made incorrectly, your question was anything but dumb. I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Ombudsmen. --HK 15:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid its even worse than that. Not only do they penalize bad behavior by people with the "wrong" POV - they also falsify charges and use trumped up allegations against them when they cannot find enough hard evidence of bad behavior to justify their desired penalties. The diffs I am being penalized for include, for example, these:   . The first is a lengthy and detailed list of NPOV problems in a very slanted pro-leftist passage Cberlet was trying to add to an article about a group on the right. The second was a message politely asking Cberlet to tone down the rudeness and hostility he was exhibiting towards me and other editors. The third was a message reminding him of Wikipedia's no personal attacks rule in response to a post where he attacked disagreeing editors. In addition to this, the Arbcom penalized me for doing nothing more than filing an RfC against Cberlet for personal attacks when he failed to tone them down in response to the above messages! All of these diffs are used as "evidence" of supposed "harassment" of Cberlet, yet as far as I can tell (1) not one violates any Wikipedia policy or guideline, (2) all are actually grounded in wikipedia policies and guidelines, which emphasize using the talk page to address concerns with other editors who are out of line and, when that fails, using an RfC, and (3) none comes even remotely close to the hostility, incivility, personal attacks, and all around unprovoked rudeness that Cberlet has exhibited towards me since the very first moment we crossed paths. What's really going on here is simple to state: Conflicts of interest abound. Willmcw, SlimVirgin, and Cberlet are all close editing allies of one Arbcom member who also frequently shares their POV (Jayjg). Cberlet is also a real life political acquantance of another Arbcom member (Fred Bauder), who also happened to be the one proposing virtually every vote, finding, and penalty here thereby giving him agenda-setting power throughout this case. Furthermore, that same arbcom member has indicated his acquantance with Cberlet was through their mutual membership in a far left wing political organization during his former career as an attorney, thereby indicating shared politics with the "correct" POV - a POV that just happens to be vocally espoused all over wikipedia by Cberlet and Willmcw with impunity, even to the degree that the latter can insert offensively racist and white supremacist material into articles for blatant guilt-by-association smears at will. The project's broken and given the current set of partisan enforcers, it probably won't be fixed until a complete housecleaning of the Arbcom. Rangerdude 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a slight problem with the characterization, by yourself, Nobs01 and Fred Bauder, of Cberlet/Chip Berlet as "leftist" or "pro-leftist." It seems a bit naive, given that his organization/website is funded by the Ford Foundation. That doesn't mean he's "rightist," either -- sometimes things are a bit more complicated. --HK 01:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: By joining one or several mutual admiration societies, a user who shares the burden of notoriety explains here , they review your stuff, you review their stuff, each rubber stamps the other with a clean bill of health, and voilà, you are a priveleged expert.  nobs 17:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question Regarding Institutionalized POV

message: Rangerdude has repeatedly accused me of violating the guideline WP:BITE. However he has not presented any evidence of a violation. I suppose that means that he no longer believes I have been "biting the newcomers". However, if he does have any evidence then now is the time to present it. Otherwise I expect that he won't make the charge again based on past events. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Willmcw desires evidence of him biting newcomers, he need look no further than his own behavior toward me after I began editing on wikipedia when he falsely identified me as the author of a POV post I did not make and began stalking my edits. Rangerdude 07:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on your earlier comments I'd presumed that you had been referring to my treatment of others.  I'd like to see this allegation resolved. I'll ask the ArbCom to consider whether my behavior towards you has violated the guideline. -Willmcw 08:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, why don't you simply agree to stop wikistalking RangerDude (and others, ahem)? Wouldn't that be the simplest result here? You are such an active Wikipedia editor that I am sure your time is better spent on your various substantive edits than all this argument and unproductive attempts to insert snide and/or politically biased comments/changes to edits made by others. Don't you agree? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't wikistalked Rangerdude, so there's no need for me to change my behavior. Nor have I engaged in the other activities you describe. -Willmcw 22:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You deny the David Duke incident? You deny the "his article is copyrighted despite his opposition to copyright law" dig you made? Do you really? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 07:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Willinator"? I thought you were going to stop making up names for me. Until you do, there's nothing to say. -Willmcw 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Willmcw: 1. "Willinator" is just a term of light affection. It is not a personal insult. 2. Do you deny the David Duke incident? 3. Do you deny the "his article is copyrighted despite his opposition to copyright law" dig you made? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  biting the newcomers