Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 28 July 2005

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

This dispute involves the continued development of the Ludwig von Mises Institute article on wikipedia, which is currently the subject of a heated content dispute involving violations of WP:NPOV and the article's emphasis. User:Willmcw has engaged in generally disruptive behavior, heavy POV pushing on this article, personal attacks against other editors, addition of inappropriate David Duke sources for POV reasons, and edits that are harmful to good faith efforts to develop this article. User:Cberlet has engaged in POV pushing, personal attacks, and belligerency towards other editors in response to polite requests of him on the article's talk page.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Willmcw

• User:Willmcw has engaged in extensive POV pushing aimed at inserting personal attacks and discrediting information against the LVMI, the article's subject.
• He's inserted and attempted to restore POV-driven material to draw associations with persons of known extremism and infamy such as David Duke
• He's been disruptive to efforts to expand and develop the article.
• He's repeatedly mischaracterized cited sources that differ from his personal POV as "blogs" as a basis for removing them
• He's inserted and restored sources that clearly qualify as "partisan political websites" in violation of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources
• He's responded to calmly stated efforts to inform him of Misplaced Pages policies that conflict with his edits by dismissing them as "personal attacks" and generally ignoring any and all efforts by other editors to curtail the aforementioned disruptive behavior.
• He's engaged in personal attacks upon the occupation and employment of another editor.

Cberlet

• User:Cberlet has engaged in POV pushing similar to that of Willmcw
• He's initiated revert and editing wars
• He's responded to polite talk page requests with extreme belligerency and personal attacks.
• He's engaged in multiple personal attacks against other editors including attacks on political affiliation and the use of profanity.
• He's ignored multiple standing objections to the lack of neutrality in his edits and refused efforts to resolve these matters on the talk page.
• He's attempted to promote his own off-site articles attacking the LVMI through self citations

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Willmcw

1. - Inserted irrelevant & unconnected quotations from known racist David Duke to discredit other mainstream sources that differed with his POV. Labelled this edit "more info on the SPLC" to suggest it was innoccuous
2. - intentionally mislabelled edit description - he removed a NPOV phrasing about a source he favors that indicated its controversial nature, but described it in the edit line as simply "add citation"
3. - Removed two sourced statements that differed with his POV, falsely characterized one of the sources as a "blog" as grounds for removal
4. - Removed material rebutting a partisan source he added that was intended to balance the article per WP:NPOV, added unsourced guilt-by-association allegation about holocaust deniers - aimed at POV discrediting of article subject.
5. - Addition of lengthy critical paragraph sourced entirely from an extremely partisan political website. Material was often portrayed as factual rather than the viewpoint of the partisan group - violates Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources
6. - Addtl. repeat talk page misrepresentation of non-blog sources that differ with his POV as "blogs" as a basis to remove them.
7. - Personal attack on the occupation and employment of User:Nskinsella. Nskinsella has fully and voluntarily disclosed on Misplaced Pages that he is active with the LVMI. Willmcw nevertheless attacked him over this and attacked his motives, stating in the edit line to Nskinsella "I don't get paid by the LVMI" and stating in his message "I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda"

Cberlet

1. - Personal attack in description line - reverted an extensively described and detailed revision of his earlier edit with request to reconcile NPOV problems on the talk page and attacked the editor requesting talk page discussion with allegation of "shameless censorchip of criticsm"
2. - revert warring over same passage
3. - refusal to participate in talk page discussion over NPOV problems and other WP policy and guideline violations in his earlier edits
4. - bad faith assumption and more personal attacks - accused editor seeking his participation in talk page discussion wiht "This is just censorship"
5. - bad faith allegations in response to good faith effort to initiate talk page discussion
6. - lengthy personal attack on editor User:Rangerdude posted to Willmcw, attack on motives as well: "This passive/aggressive baloney from Rangerdude is tiresome. He now rules the LvMI page with an iron fist, in a perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over. The iron first in the velvet glove--the perfect metaphor."
7. - personal attacks and profanity directed against another contributer.
8. - addition of links to off-site "sources" criticizing the LVMI that he himself authored (located here ). Cberlet did not disclose his own authorship of this link at the time he added it - a conflict of interest and self promotion.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:POINT
3. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources
4. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks
5. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith

Additional applicable sections

1. "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Misplaced Pages except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." - Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (The Southern Poverty Law Center as a partisan political source).
2. "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization" - WP:NPOV (Aforementioned editors organized and presented SPLC material in manner that promoted their POV & selected "facts" that promoted POV's)
3. "(W)hile a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source." - WP:NPOV (Imbalance in addition of SPLC and other critical material)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Willmcw

Attempts at trying to resolve the dispute with Willmcw by multiple editors

1. - User:Nskinsella approaches Willmcw on NPOV problems regarding David Duke. User:DickClarkMises concurs and proposes the same on NPOV grounds. Willmcw refuses, feigns seriousness in adding Duke on the basis that he's "better known than" other more pertinent sources being used. Also generally disruptive in response - Willmcw's comments indicate he added Duke for reasons that were not constructive, to wit: another source already in the article allegedly makes it that "any general criticism" including Duke "seems appropriate." WP:POINT disruption.
2. - User:Rangerdude directs Willmcw to Misplaced Pages's "no personal attacks" policy in response to Willmcw's personal attack on Nskinsella's employment and occupation. States "For the sake of civility and with respect to wikipedia's editing guidelines, I would urge the editor in violation to refrain from such personal attacks upon the person of another editor be they direct or by implication. Thank you." No response given by Willmcw
3. - User:DH003i complains of disruptive and POV pushing behavior by some editors "who have been actively "working" to make this article mis-representative and of poor quality" and stating their "actions speak for themselves." This appears to be intended as a You know who you are so knock it off type warning to disruptive editing practices in general as DHoo3i did not name specific names it applied to. Willmcw reacts with hostility, accuses DH003i of making a "personal attack."
4. - User:Rangerdude responds to Willmcw's allegation against DH003i, states specific objections to Willmcw's disruptive edits (i.e. Duke) and politely requests that he cease and desist: "Myself and many others have suggested this to you in calm and reasonable terms many times with little result, hence the problem and recurring discussions of it. Given these many notes, I trust that you will conduct yourself more responsibly in the future." In response Willmcw ignores complaints about his editing practices, accuses Rangerdude of personal attacks as well and directs that the discussion be removed to his talk page.
5. - User:Rangerdude quotes and links to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources passage against the use of partisan sources as a reminder to all editors and in reference to violations of it by Willmcw. Willmcw rudely responds, posts insinuations about rangerdude and mocks the quoting of this provision, ignores provision about use of partisan sources.
6. Attempts by User:Rangerdude to communicate with Willmcw above also prompt Willmcw to post a message to Rangerdude's talk page making more allegations that the requests of him are personal attacks. Rangerdude replies on Willmcw's talk page to address this allegation . Rangerdude responds that Willmcw has been ignoring "all attempts to calmly and rationally inform you of the problems many of your edits there are producing in light of Misplaced Pages's written policies and guidelines" and asks of Willmcw "Please do not mischaracterize these critiques of your edits as "personal attacks" and please cease and desist in your misrepresentation of myself and the other editors who have corrected you for your edits in order to bring them into compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. I would also appreciate it if you would abstain from making these false insinuations and allegations on both the article talk page and my personal talk page."

Cberlet

Attempts at trying to resolve the dispute with Cberlet (by User:Rangerdude unless noted)

1. - Detailed description of NPOV and other problems with his edits followed by a polite request to work for consensus first on the talk page and to fix the NPOV problems - "Upon consideration of the above and review of the aforementioned Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, he or any other user is invited to propose the addition of materials here on the talk page." Cberlet rebuffed and ignored this request here with a rude 4-word response "Reverted. This is absurd."
2. - Attempt #2. Politely responded to Cberlet that "there's no need for hostility or rudeness" and politely directed him to WP:NPOV policy. Closed with polite 2nd invitation to discuss matter on talk page - "I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated. Thanks." Cberlet refused and attacked with allegation of "censorship"
3. - Attempt #3. Responded to "censorship" allegation and attack by politely directing Cberlet to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Offered a third opportunity to discuss the matter, but this time with a warning that continued hostility would necessitate seeking dispute resolution: "I am patient enough to permit you another opportunity to do this, but in light of the hostility you have displayed despite these multiple attempts, I am prepared to pursue dispute resolution against you in short order if the hostility persists. Thanks." Refused again by denying the problems and making an inconsequential change.
4. - Attempt #4 - again politely requested a talk page discussion: "please propose your desired additions here and I will be happy to detail what I still find objectionable as well as propose collaborative revisions of it in a manner that is more likely to reach consensus among the half dozen or so editors who are actively involved in developing this article at the very moment. Thanks." Cberlet rudely refused, made personal and bad faith allegations, said efforts on the talk page were "not worth a damn" and said to go ahead with dispute resolution as mentioned.
5. ] - User:Nskinsella responds to Cberlet that not "everyone here is working to make the article better." Expresses concern for non-neutral edits biased against LVMI by certain editors.
6. - User:Dh003i addresses Cberlet about disruptive editing, NPOV problems in his edits, lack of seriousness, and false allegations of "censorship" by Cberlet. Cberlet's response is dismissive.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Rangerdude 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
2. DickClarkMises 03:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Stephan Kinsella 19:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)(specific to Cberlet)
2. Wyss 19:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Response by Cberlet

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

This is a blatant attempt to stage a confrontation to allow the complainant and allies to hijack a page and sanitize any serious criticism of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI).

It should be clear from a review of the discussion page that Rangerdude and other allies of LvMI did not engage in a serious attempt to edit in good faith, and repeatedly deleted material critical of the LvMI--no matter how I and others tried to rewrite the material to meet the objections raised.

Over time, the justifications for these deletions ranged through a series of contradictory demands:

——Simply dismissing the Southern Poverty Law Center as "partisan" and not a credible source (despite the fact that it is widely quoted in the mainstream media)(and then deleting text arbitrarily);

——Demanding that material not specifically cited to LvMI in a SPLC article be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily).

——When the material was cited directly to the LvMI website, demanding that "original research" be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily);

——Claiming the criticisms were in the "wrong" section, (and then deleting them arbitrarily);

——Deleting material and than demanding that all edits critical of LvMI be discussed on the talk page, despite the fact that they were being discussed.

This is a shameful episode and an attempt to impose ideological censorship on Misplaced Pages.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Cberlet 01:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
2. FeloniousMonk 04:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Cberlet describes a pattern which I have witnessed here before.
3. Willmcw 22:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
4. Ruy Lopez 23:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Will and Chip are both excellent editors, who in my experience exert a calming influence on controversial pages, do not engage in personal attacks, strive to maintain neutrality, and care about using good sources. SlimVirgin 05:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

   Comment - Given the strong personal allegiances to the two accused editors exhibited both above and elsewhere on wikipedia by User:SlimVirgin I would request that this user recuse himself/herself from participation in any mediation or further dispute resolution proceedings that may arise from this dispute on the LVMI article. This editor's repeated citation of personal opinions toward the two aforementioned editors in place of substantive examination of the cited WP policy violations involving them introduce a personal bias that I believe could inhibit constructive work in a mediation or other proceeding if he/she is involved. Thank you. Rangerdude 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

6. I'd also add that it's an honor to have Chip Berlet working on Misplaced Pages. 172 | Talk 06:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
7. El_C 06:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC) This is an example of POV editing by individuals who have trouble accepting criticism of an organization which they have admitted close ties to. Stephan Kinsella has written for LvMI, as has dh003i. DickClarkMises is an employee of the organization. I don't think these conflicts preclude them from editing the article, but it's worth noting since they have failed to resist the urge to remove criticism from the article, instead choosing to drum up some charges against the critics.
9. Robert McClenon 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

   Comment to User:Rhobite - I would urge you to resist painting all supporters of this complaint with a broad brush regarding employment, and also believe you characterize the persons affiliated with it unfairly. Stephan Kinsella, DH003i, and DickClarkMises have ALL been forthright in disclosing their involvement with LVMI during the editing process on this article and have made no attempts to cover or hide this fact. It should also be noted that Cberlet is not without professional biases in this matter - himself being a political consultant/researcher on the left who publishes material attacking the political right, in which LVMI falls - yet he did not, to my knowledge, disclose this as the LVMI affiliates have readily done. Furthermore, this RfC was initiated not by Stephan Kinsella, DickClarkMises, or DH003i but rather by myself. I have absolutely no professional affiliations, connections, or ties to the LVMI whatsoever yet nevertheless observed the same POV-pushing, disruptive behavior, irresponsible David Duke quoting smear attempts, and personally abusive comments being made by the other side that met with objections from the same LVMI affiliates you mention.

   I never claimed that these editors were trying to hide their affiliations, and I didn't accuse you (Rangerdude) of being affiliated with the LvMI. Neither Willmcw nor Cberlet made "personally abusive comments". I don't wish to discuss this further. Rhobite 07:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

   You did however insinuate that this RfC was motivated by an aversion to criticism among affiliates of the LVMI. As I am not an affiliate and as I initiated this RfC on my own that characterization is wrong, which is why I made note of it here.Rangerdude 07:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

   My name is on the byline of one of the SPLC articles being dismissed as "partisan," and my identity and place of employment are on my user page, and widely discussed on Wiki, including on the Wiki entry under my name. I do not think these editors are idiots and I thought that my identity was part of their problem with my edits; especially since one critic of my prose wrote on the talk page "Chip Berlet is a self-avowed big shot when it comes to 'sniffing out' supposed right-wing hate groups, and as far as I can tell is a Morris Dees wanna-be." I do not believe there is an issue here, (and at least the person whacking me in the line above has consistently shown a sense of humor). My only concern has been that some people affiliated with or fans of LvMI do not consider themselves "partisan" in this debate--while dismissing as "partisan" any reference to SPLC material (I freelanced one article that criticized LvMI) or other criticisms.--Cberlet 11:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Comment to Cberlet: I was the one who wrote the above quoted txt. I had never heard of you, and had no idea about your political/professional affiliations until after this disagreement ensued. The fact that you were constantly acting in obviously bad faith (i.e. disregarding the suggestions of other editors with curt, dismissive responses) prompted me to figure out why you might be acting in such an uncooperative manner. This sort of character assassination is of course on par with the SPLC's usual activities, which is partially why I refused employment there in 2000 (I'll admit that the hour commute wasn't terribly attractive either). The difference between my bias and yours is that I wear mine on my sleeve, and don't pooh-pooh others' suggestions. Your edits seem to carry with them a sense of entitlement, as if you are somehow more of an authority than the other editors. My problem with your actions is that you don't seem to have a modicum of modesty about your contributions, and you are not willing to develop them via dialectic. 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Good work by Cberlet and Willmcw in trying to NPOV articles which were being distorted by people too close to the subject to be objective.

Jayjg 16:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Bletch 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Response by Others

Response by Nskinsella

Response to Cberlet :This is a blatant attempt to stage a confrontation to allow the complainant and allies to hijack a page and sanitize any serious criticism of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI).

No, criticism is normal and acceptable. But you don't "balance" a criticism with one from David Duke, duhh! Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:It should be clear from a review of the discussion page that Rangerdude and other allies of LvMI did not engage in a serious attempt to edit in good faith, and repeatedly deleted material critical of the LvMI--no matter how I and others tried to rewrite the material to meet the objections raised.

:Over time, the justifications for these deletions ranged through a series of contradictory demands:

Well, different editors were involved. How is that "contradictory"?

——Simply dismissing the Southern Poverty Law Center as "partisan" and not a credible source (despite the fact that it is widely quoted in the mainstream media)(and then deleting text arbitrarily); ——Demanding that material not specifically cited to LvMI in a SPLC article be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily). ——When the material was cited directly to the LvMI website, demanding that "original research" be deleted, (and then deleting it arbitrarily); ——Claiming the criticisms were in the "wrong" section, (and then deleting them arbitrarily); ——Deleting material and than demanding that all edits critical of LvMI be discussed on the talk page, despite the fact that they were being discussed.

Willmcw and others kept insisting that critiques from "mere blogs" didn't count; yet Willmcw had previously linked to the Tom Palmer blog. He finally reletned to this being removed. Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:This is a shameful episode and an attempt to impose ideological censorship on Misplaced Pages.

No; an article about LvMI was put up. Someone noted that SPLC accuses them of racism. So I or someone else (I can't recall now) put up a critique of SPLC, by Horowitz, that their claims of racism are often exaggerated. this balances the critique. Willmcw then insists that the critique come the victim himself, LvMI. Why? makes no sense. Then he adds a "supporting" critique, noting that ex-KKK grand poobah David Duke "also" has criticized SPLC. This is just horrible political posturing. Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Rangerdude 05:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
2. DickClarkMises 14:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Response by JamesMLane

I participated in the discussion in response to an earlier RfC concerning article content, so I'm not exactly an "outside" view, though I made only minor edits to the article itself. This article about a libertarian think tank has been edited by several (pro-)libertarian users; in fact, one of those certifying this dispute, User:DickClarkMises, discloses on his user page that he is employed by the Institute. Not surprisingly, the article has seen some POV-inspired battles. Neither side has a spotless record, but the editors who are positively disposed toward the Institute have generally gone much further in pressing their own opinions despite Misplaced Pages policies. For example, it's not proper to censor notable criticisms of the Institute just because some pro-libertarian editors disagree with the criticisms, deride those criticisms as "nutty", and contrast them with "erious criticism". Fundamentally, there's nothing here except a fairly typical situation in which opinionated editors (including yours truly) find the other side's NPOV violations easier to spot than their own. I find it striking that Rangerdude is complaining about the tone of the discussion, given that he's attacked Willmcw for "disruptive stunts he's pulling" () and has generally been at least as abrasive as anyone else in the discussion. JamesMLane 01:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. JamesMLane 01:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
2. JesseW 02:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Outside views

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

View by Bishonen

I have clicked on the diffs offered and read them, and the edits by Willmcw and Cberlet that Rangerdude complains of seem perfectly reasonable to me. They consist mainly of good NPOV'ing of the article, IMO. If this is the evidence you've got, the accusations are groundless. I see little point in this RfC, but if you seriously want it to be accepted, you need to get hold of someone neutral to attempt mediation, however informally, so that you've got something other than your own side of arguments (including some flames) to put under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". That's not what that section is for, and dressing it up by calling your opponent's posts "allegations" and "attacks" and your own "polite" is just... well, I don't know what to call it, it just makes me laugh. "Responded to "censorship" allegation and attack by politely directing Cberlet to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith". Man, that's some dispute resolution.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Bishonen | talk 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Yet another misuse of the RfC process against two very good editors. SlimVirgin 19:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

   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 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 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 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)

3. --Viajero | Talk 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Bletch 01:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Ruy Lopez 04:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 06:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
7. El_C 06:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
9. Jayjg 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
10. JimWae 17:51, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

View by JimWae

Should not 4 certifications be required against 2 people? Do we not need to remove doubt that this is an attempt at guilt by association, particularly since that is part of the issue regarding some of the edits? RfC should be split in two--JimWae 04:47, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

View by Sam Spade

Evidence of Disputed Behavior

• Spurious Plagiarism_allegations
  • More evidence of sources having been cited in the article as well as in talk, in contrast to his allegations
• Instructs an editor to "overhaul your attitude" in reply to an attempt to discuss recent and future edits
• Remarks comparing statements made by an editor to the "homoeroticism of fascism"
• Spurious accusation of vandalism
• He admits to assuming bad faith

Attempts at trying to resolve the dispute with Cberlet by User:Sam Spade

• Refusal of informal mediation
• more refusal of informal mediation
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation#User:Cberlet_and_User:Sam_Spade
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Sam Spade
• WP:TINMC#Christian_right_and_Political_correctness

I think moving my evidence and signature was weird, this page is not about a specific article, it is about specific people. Since this is the first RfC for two individuals, I find it unusual to set the precedent of moving signatures and evidence presented by the agreived, entirely without consulting them. That said, I dispute the conduct of Cberlet, which is evidenced above. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Sam - I moved your signature etc. here as a formatting edit in response to complaints on the discussion page, although I am more or less indifferent on the placement if you feel you have a good reason to include it in the section about Cberlet. I would urge you to discuss this issue further on the talk page section where the other complaints were posted, and if need be we can move it as needed. Thanks Rangerdude 02:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

View by Wyss

The article's purpose is to describe the organisation, including its history and what it does. Given the topic's polarization, any documented criticisms specific to the organisation should all be isolated in a separate section called criticisms or something similar. Any generic criticisms of the Austrian school of economics belong in that article, not this one. Wyss 19:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Robert McClenon 21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

View by Robert McClenon

This is really two issues, an issue about article content and an issue about user conduct. I agree with the author of the RfC as to article content. The content that the two users introduced into the article was POV, and was not a reasonable addition to the article, even if presented as POV. Any reference to David Duke that is not a direct connection is out of place. Any statements by the Southern Poverty Law Center are also POV. It is not clear why their POV is necessary for the reader to understand what the LvMI is or does.

Having looked at the diffs, I think that the originator of the RfC has made a very marginal case as to user conduct. There may have been breaches of civility, but they were not flagrant. The originator has been overly sensitive in labelling a statement as profanity.

I suggest that the two editors in question refrain from further edits to the article, or at least from further partisan edits to the article, and that the issue of user conduct be allowed to subside. Robert McClenon 21:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Rangerdude 05:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - I concur with the recommendation portion of this view re: partisan edits.
2. My impression too, is they were seeding the article with incendiary, negative PoV. IMO (as I wrote above) a separate criticism section, with summaries arrived at by consensus, would likely work. Wyss 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

View by FuelWagon

This took some parsing to figure out what's going on. The three individuals who certified this RFC: Rangerdude, DickClarkMises, and Nskinsella appear to have a conflict of interest over the Mises Institute article.

DickClarkMises says on his user page that he is employed at the Mises institute.

user Nskinsella says on his user page that he is an adjunct scholar of the Mises institute.

Whether or not Rangerdude is employed by the Mises Institute is unclear, however his opinion regarding the institute is fairly clear when he made the edit below. Rangerdude added the piece that is italicized:

Citing some mutual affiliations between the Institute and the League of the South, the Southern Poverty Law Center - a controversial left wing watchdog group that conservative intellectual David Horowitz has accused of fear-mongering -claims the Mises Institute to be a Neo-confederate organization.

DickClarkMises and Nskinsella are is editing an article about their his employer, Nskinsella is editing an article on an organization for which he is an unpaid "adjunct scholar", the Mises Institute, which happens to be a political organization based in Alabama that does not qualify anywhere near "mainstream". The Mises Institute's stated goal is to "undermine statism in all its forms", appears to default to criticism of the federal government on any topic, and didn't like the way Abraham Lincoln handled the civil war, which might be explained by the fact that they also happen to support the right of secession.

The current state of the article is problematic. I haven't tracked down which editor added what, but the "Controversies" section at one point contained a one-word criticism of the Mises institute from the "Southern Poverty Law Center" (SPLC), followed by several paragraphs criticizing the SPLC. The SPLC called the Mises institute "Neo Confederate". This point of view was followed not by other points of views about the Mises institute, but by several points of view critical of the SPLC. I see that the section has undergone a major rewrite since I saw it yesterday. It appears that the article is not implementing NPOV correctly, and should list various points of view of teh Mises institute, not one criticism of it, followed by reams of criticism of the criticism. If it refocused on the Mises institute, then things might be brought back on track.

As for the three certifiers, I'm not sure what wikipedia policy is about editing an article about your employer, but there is a personal conflict of interest at work here. Two politically motivated individuals (one paid employee, the other unpaid volunteer) of a political organization seem to be bringing their POV to the article without filtering it through wikipedia's Neutral Point of View requirements.

As for the editors in question of the RFC, this diff by Cberlet seems to indicate an attempt to add criticism within NPOV requirements. The criticism added is quoting what the SPLC says about the Mises institute based on quotes the SPLC has from Mises Institute archives. This diff shows Willmcw adding criticism of the Mises instutite which also seems to meet wikipedia NPOV requirements. The criticism is in the form of "Ed Sebesta says (blah) about Mises institute". Both Cberlet and Willmcw's edits contained URL's to outside sources.

In this diff, Rangerdude deletes the vast majority of the criticism section, citing "original research" and that the critics are "unnamed". However, the block of text removed contained 9 URL's, direct quotes from the Mises institute website, and lists the SPLC and a "London newspaper" (with URL), as the sources of criticism.

In this diff, Nskinsella adds a sentence countering the SPLC criticism.

Opponents of this kind of charge view it as merely an excess of political correctness run amok, and frequently note that such so-called politically-correct and liberal types often excuse or whitewash--hypocritically, some say--the genocides and mass murders committed during the twentieth century by governments they would otherwise view as benevolent.

This would seem to qualify as original research as it contains absolutely zero sources. Given Nskinsella's employment volunteer situation, it might also qualify as the point of view of the editor entering the article behind the unnamed "opponents".

User DickClarkMises has few edits on the Mises Institute page. The ones he has made have been relatively minor. This diff shows him correctly changing the wording of criticism from a statement of fact to a claim by critic, which I would support. Other than that, he uploaded an image and made non-controversial edits. On the "votes for deletion Stephan Kinsella" page, DickClarkMises states that he was the original contributer on the Stephan Kinsella article, which means he started an article about someone who would become his coworker, if I'm reading this all correctly.

In summary, it is my opinion that the conflict of interest that two employees one employee/one unpaid volunteer have regarding an article about their employer, and Rangerdude's political alliance with the Mises institute, is likely far more the root of the problem here than any wikipedia policy violations by Cberlet or Willmcw. FuelWagon 18:37, 28 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Rangerdude 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.