Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 3

message: I re-wrote the lead paragraph to focus on the movement, rather than the use of the term. I don't expect immediate agreement on the exact wording of the list of issues, but I'm open to working on it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there needs to be something in it about how most neoconfederate groups desire to reconstitute the CSA through renewed secession. That seems to be a common feature of them. Also, "revisionist history" may be a POV term. Even though it is used a lot, it is almost always used to disparage the person it is referring to. This should be replaced with something indicating that they espouse history written from a confederate or southern perspective.Rangerdude 19:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it already indicated that secession is an issue, both directly and as part of fulfilling CSA aims. I changed the text about history. I don't think we can call it the "southern perspective" because not everybody in the South is pro-confederate. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraphs

message: I think the new introduction has helped round out the article so that it doesn't dwell on the negative connotation of "confederate" as much. I'm sure it still needs work, but I don't see any pressing need for the NPOV tag. Unless anyone else has issues they feel are not being addressed, I think it can come down. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by meRangerdude 20:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Willmcw's recent edit to Ed Sebesta's self-description appears to have been made strictly for the purpose of making a point in protest of a WP:NPOV edit I made to the James McPherson article located here. His edits to this end, which were made on this article and at least two others, constitute a violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Specifically Willmcw attempted to "apply the decision" I made in editing James McPherson regarding NPOV "to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy the contributor objects to," in this case the edit to McPherson. Willmcw's mirroring is evidenced in the fact that he copied my edit description verbatim and substituted Sebesta's name. Per WP:POINT "These activities are generally disruptive" (emphasis in original). Given that this action is also part of a long pattern of similar POV pushing and harassment by Willmcw, it has been documented and added to the list of violations in a currently pending arbitration request against him. Rangerdude 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you just grandstanding or is there any particular point about this article that you want to make? -Willmcw 07:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, Will, that you are disrupting large ammounts of Wikipedia content for personal and political reasons. Rangerdude 15:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point seems to be that a dispraging, POV term needs to be included for Sebesta. -Willmcw 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're claiming that Sebesta is disparaging himself when he plasters all over his site that he's an "anti-neo-confederate researcher"... You're grasping at straws, Will. Rangerdude 02:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-styled" is pejorative. -Willmcw 05:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then exactly how would you prefer to indicate that "anti-neo-confederate researcher" is what Sebesta calls himself? Rangerdude 15:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply call him a "anti-neo-confederate researcher", as that is what he is. No need for the "self-styled" business. -Willmcw 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words, you can't make up your mind over exactly what basis you wish to make your disruption on. A few edits back you were claiming the quotation marks around Sebesta's self-description were "scare quotes" even though it is a statement taken from his own words. Now you've changed your argument to purport that the identification of his quote's source as a self-description is the "pejorative" (which is an odd claim in its own right since pejorative=disparaging, meaning you are essentially saying that the authorship of Sebesta's own words effectively permits him to disparage himself). In short what we have here is an editor seeking to invent reasons as to why his WP:POINT disruption, carried out over 4 separate articles in retaliation to a NPOV cite that removed what he saw as a politically beneficial claim, should nevertheless be allowed to stand. While I am unenthused about continuing this further in your tit-for-tat style of near-constant revert warring and political provocation (itself quite odd and "un-admin-like" for an administrator, who is theoretically supposed to foster consensus rather than disrupt it), it is sufficient to note the changing faces and straw-grasping nature of your justifications here as conclusive evidence that the basis for them was not grounded in any genuine interest for improving wikipedia but rather in personal, retaliatory, and POV interests of the disruptive kind. As noted from the outset, this entire episode rises to the level of disruption indicated on WP:POINT to be problematic and accordingly will be included in the general arbitration case against you for your edits and behavior toward other editors. Rangerdude 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Prove a Point