This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 16 November 2005 (→Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Request by Rangerdude

1) I believe this is the correct place to note this, but please forgive me if it is not. I am requesting that the merge between this case and the other at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin be corrected to reflect that the Arbcom decision was to merge this case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude into Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin, not the other way around as has been done. All four arbitrator votes to accept both cases specified that this case was to be merged into Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin, and as such we should abide by that decision and its template adjusted accordingly to reflect it. Thank you. Rangerdude 05:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Makes no difference either way Fred Bauder 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. If it is possible, I would prefer that it be noted to reflect this vote on the Arbitration and evidence etc. pages. I realize that several of those pages are in use already, so moving them would be difficult. A notice on the pages indicating that the Rangerdude RfAr was merged into the Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin RfAr by Arbcom vote would work instead. Thanks! Rangerdude 08:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request for temporary suspension of admin powers

2) I would like to request that the adminship powers of User:SlimVirgin be temporarily suspended pending the outcome of this arbitration for violations of WP:PPol as detailed on the evidence page . Rangerdude 08:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Comment - I'm withdrawing this request for the time being since SlimVirgin has made what appear to be good faith efforts at resolving this dispute on the talk page. Rangerdude 18:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Recusal Notice request

As this RfAr involves two fairly well known administrators on Misplaced Pages, I am also requesting in compliance with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy on conflict of interest for any arbitration participant who has a strong historical editing relationship with or other personal allegiance to SlimVirgin, Willmcw, or both to disclose this information and, if applicable, recuse him or herself in accordance with this policy. Thank you. Rangerdude 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I posted this in the original RfAr. As the case appears to be underway now, I'm posting it again to ensure that all are aware of it and to ask for any disclosures that may pertain to it. Any such disclosure should include past dealings both on and off site, past instances of support, and even personal trust or favor toward these editors. Thanks. Rangerdude 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request for finding of fact on monitoring

Willmcw has stated here that "Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits.", but he also continues to assert that he's appeared on articles I've edited shortly afterwards for reasons other than following me as he indicated he was doing in his first statement. Given the relevance of this issue to determining the allegation of wikistalking that is at the center of this case, I would like to request a finding of fact on this issue: Willmcw has stated that he monitors Rangerdude's edits. Thank you for your consideration. Rangerdude 04:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I have also presented evidence that Rangerdude has followed by edits with the intent to harass. Therefore, I'd like there to be a finding of fact that Rangerdude followed my edits. In addition to the evidence that I have already given, I believe that the only way he could have obtained some of the information in this part of his complaint is by following my edits. Thanks, -Willmcw 10:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Willmcw's claims above from the links I posted to his stalker lists on his user pages, I discovered these from two incidents, neither of which involved "following" Willmcw. In the first one, Willmcw posted an open link to his sandbox himself in the withdrawn RfC he attempted to initiate against me in retaliation for an admin incident report I filed against him earlier that day. The second occured when User:Herschel Krustofsky posted a link to a similar stalker list Willmcw compiled on his sandbox in his complaint for this arbitration case located here. After HK posted this link, I remembered Willmcw compiling a similar list against me on the RfC and relocated it. I then checked the histories and edit activity on his sandbox page where those lists had been posted and found that he had made many more of them against me. I added them to my evidence because they demonstrate clear hypocrisy since Willmcw complained in his original charges against me for keeping a list of the articles he's stalked me to on my sandbox. If the Arbcom is interested in finding genuine evidence of obtaining information by following though, I will suggest one place where they may find it. This recent edit by Willmcw on the evidence page shows that he has intentionally searched out and compiled a list of every edit I made on wikipedia where I complained of his use of David Duke quotes in violation of NPOV on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. Rangerdude 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request by for WP:POINT finding

I would also like to request an investigation into WP:POINT disruptions by Willmcw entailed in his counterallegations of wikistalking against me, which I consider to have been made in both bad faith and for retaliatory purposes. The disruptive nature of these counterallegations is evidenced in his post here during my attempts to develop a wikipedia guideline on stalking. In this post he threatens to file a wikistalking charge against me, evidently for the purpose of disrupting and discrediting my work on this guideline proposal. He followed through with this threat on my talk page two days later here. This allegation also coincided with a post 18 minutes later by SlimVirgin here. SlimVirgin's edit posted a link to Willmcw's allegation on my original Village Pump announcement of the stalking proposal and contained language indicating this action was intended to discredit the proposal, "Rangerdude accused of the very thing he was posting about. How irritating." I believe that this evidence is supportive of my contention that Willmcw's wikistalking countercharges against me have been made in bad faith and for the purpose of proving a point in violation of WP:POINT. Rangerdude 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Regarding me, this seems to duplicate the #Request for fact finding on retaliation below. -Willmcw 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Actually, I would like for the Arbcom to examine evidence of both the wikistalking counterallegation threat as an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point and the repeated use of the dispute resolution process in general to file retaliatory motions. Though the examples overlap, they are two separate issues. Rangerdude 06:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request for fact finding on retaliation

I would also like the Arbcom to make a finding of fact on this issue: Willmcw uses the dispute resolution process to retaliate against editors who have made complaints about him. My evidence is as follows:

1. Rangerdude files admin Incident Board complaint against Willmcw on June 15 for wikistalking. Willmcw retaliates four hours later with a User RfC against Rangerdude, alleging that describing his edits as wikistalking is a "personal attack"
2. Willmcw threatens to post a retaliatory allegation of wikistalking against Rangerdude on the talk page of Rangerdude's anti-stalking guideline proposal. Willmcw follows through with this threat 2 days later.
3. Rangerdude files a Request for Arbitration with Willmcw and SlimVirgin on August 18 . Willmcw files a retaliatory Request for Arbitration against Rangerdude 5 days later on August 23 . (Note: the Arbcom subsequently voted to merge Willmcw's case into mine, and this current case is the result.)

I submit that each of these incidents was a retaliatory use of the dispute resolution process by Willmcw made after I initiated complaints against his behavior shortly prior. As such, they were done in bad faith and in a manner intended to inflame the dispute entailed in my original complaint rather than to resolve it. Rangerdude 21:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. They did not need to make an independent request in order for their complaints against you to be heard. It was claimed by Guy Montag that such an independent request was necessary in the Yuber case but that contention was rejected. If there is a dispute and it goes to arbitration the complaints of all participants in the dispute will be considered, if it makes sense to do so. Fred Bauder 02:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have not acted in retaliation for anything.

1. On June 15, the mediation effort at Houston Cronicle collapsed. Rangerdude went and placed a complaint at WP:ANI, while I went and prepared an RfC. Rangerdude did not inform me of his complaint, abnd I didn't discover it until I'd posted the RfC. I note that the responses to Rangerdude's complaint suggested that this was more a matter for an RfC. last edit to that section.

2. I didn't threaten "to post a retaliatory allegation of wikistalking". I responded to your assertion that as a supposed "wikistalker" I should not be able to edit the Misplaced Pages:Stalking page, and that you were not guilty of it ("I have not engaged in the practice of wikistalking..."). I found that there was evidence that Rangerdude had indeed followed me to pages in order to harass me, and I told him so.

3. By mid-August Rangerdude was becoming more disruptive. This case can only be called "retaliatory" if it found to be baseless.

I note that Rnagerude has made actions that seem strongly retaliatory in nature, including the inclusion of user:Johntex in this arbitration and the previous VfD of an article that user had created. -Willmcw 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Willmcw's allegations above are simply more falsehoods. First, I did NOT include user:Johntex in this arbitration - he voluntarily joined Willmcw's case against me on August 26th . Second, the mediation at Houston Chronicle did NOT "collapse" prior to Willmcw's RfC. Both Katefan0 and myself had posted lengthy statements of our positions earlier that day and the mediator had asked us both for time to review them. Willmcw created the RfC at 04:53 on June 15th, yet multiple posts and discussions continued on the mediation page for the rest of that day long after his RfC was filed. The mediator even posted a message to Willmcw there at 07:37 asking him to "be patient" and instructing him not to add himself into the closed section of the mediation, as he had been doing . If anything, the mediation's history shows that Willmcw's retaliatory RfC against me helped cause that mediation to collapse AFTER it was posted, not the other way around as he asserts. Third, Willmcw has yet to explain why he started a completely separate RfAr against me after I filed the original one when (1) he knew he'd have a full opportunity to make his complaints against me in his response, and (2) the liklihood that his complaint would be merged into mine was high. Rangerdude 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. One more thing - Willmcw's purported lack of awareness of my WP:ANI complaint against him at the time of his RfC is demonstrably false. This may be demonstrated in the fact that Willmcw linked to my ANI complaint against him in his evidence list for the RfC when he created it (see the first link under the header "Talk pages where Rangerdude calls me a "stalker"" under the evidence section - it goes directly to my ANI complaint made earlier that day). This fact alone indicates that the RfC was retaliatory. Rangerdude 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes

I would like to request a finding of fact that SlimVirgin makes ex post facto changes to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that have been cited to her in dispute resolution.

Example 1: SlimVirgin changed WP:RS to support her interpretation of what count as partisan political websites following a dispute at the Chip Berlet article when I cited this guideline in support of my contention that Berlet's political and editorial beliefs be so designated since they came from a partisan political source.

Example 2: SlimVirgin changed WP:PPol to provide greater discretion to admins in applying page protection to articles they have edited after I included evidence in this arbitration that she violated "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in cases of simple vandalism." Change 1 to WP:PPol - , change 2 after I reverted , change 3 , change 4 , change 5 (to WP:PP guideline) .

I would like to request the Arbcom to make a finding of fact on this matter. In doing so I ask that they consider the propriety of making policy changes unilaterally and without community consensus, as in both cases SlimVirgin changed the policies to conform with her personal interpretations and views of them after they had been quoted to her as evidence of impropriety by her or other editors she supported. Rangerdude 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I will look at the changes she made and consider your contentions Fred Bauder 02:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. As to changing the page protection policy to active editing rather than editing, that is just common sense as active editing is implied. Edits months or years ago should not be considered unless they were in a contested context which is still relevant. As to fulfilling arbitration committee decrees, that would depend on the context and the decree. The closest we have come to ordering protection was the Bogdanov Affair. I am not sure how protecting Islamophobia could have been considered carrying out an arbitration decree unless it was considered to be under attack by a banned editor. I'm not sure what the status of Yuber was on October 15 or if that relates in any way to this matter. Fred Bauder 14:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I don't see a problem with this edit to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources . It really doesn't address the question of whether Chip's organization should be considered a reliable source, at least not directly. Each organization must be considered individually, as must websites. SlimVirgin's edit does not change that reality. Opinions may differ and it may be very difficult to decide in borderline cases. However, I may point out that we routinely link to a number of sources with strong political viewpoints. Fred Bauder 15:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Fred, I can't keep on doing diffs to answer all these claims. It took me hours yesterday to compile the diffs to defend myself over the claim that I'd violated NPOV at Chip Berlet. This is all part of what Rangerdude's been doing for months: endless nitpicking, accusations, ancient-history resurrection. In brief: months ago, I wrote the sentence in WP:RS about being careful not to use partisan websites. When Rangerdude tried to use it to exclude Chip Berlet as a source, I saw that he'd misunderstood it, and I went back and tightened it to make it clear that extremist websites were excluded, not just websites with a bias. I did a similar thing at WP:PP. I was the original author of the sentence in the intro saying "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing." When Rangerdude accused me of violating it at Islamophobia, even though I wasn't editing it, I went back to tighten the sentence by adding "actively," so it would have read "admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing" (but he reverted me). And I wanted to add something about the important point being that they must not use page protection to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That's the essence of the protection policy, but Rangerdude kept reverting so I didn't get to add it. Now he makes all this sound so sinister, as though I'm creeping around Misplaced Pages trying to adjust things in my favor. All I'm doing is tightening policy according to the misunderstandings or problems I see occurring because of a certain wording. That is how the wording of policy documents gets improved over time. Rangerdude seems unable to understand the difference between the spirit of a policy and the letter of it. The spirit wins every time, in my view. SlimVirgin 02:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Is the assertion here that editing a guideline once a matter is in dispute is bad? I don't see how this is different than Rangerdude's work on the various Wikistalking pages. -Willmcw 06:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude apparently forgets that most of his contributions to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Stalking, and Misplaced Pages:Harassment were unilateral. Very little (if any) of his proposed language was adopted by the community. -Willmcw 10:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. The issue here is that SlimVirgin unilaterally alters guidelines and proposals that she's been challenged on in disputes to conform to her own interpretation of them and provide greater cover to her own actions. I am contending that this is problematic because in both cases, SlimVirgin made no effort to obtain consensus behind her changes. She simply rewrote the policies in ways that best suited her behavior and personal interpretations of them. This lack of consensus building became evident when I objected to here PPol changes and asked for other editor input. Several independent editors quickly stated opposition to what she was trying to do and favored keeping it the same. By contrast, in my wikistalking guideline work that Willmcw alludes to in his comment, I openly sought out consensus and made changes to reflect wikipedia community objections and Arbcom rulings. When wikistalking was finally incorporated into the harassment guidelines, it was done with widespread community participation over several months time. Rangerdude 06:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I would like to note that Willmcw's allegations that I made "unilateral" changes to policy similar to SlimVirgin are false. In all three of the cases he notes above, I contributed on the talk page and in the development of provisions that were not yet guidelines or policies. All of my major proposals were made in talk page posts that asked for feedback and consensus, and I did not unilaterally change any of the existing policies or guidelines without obtaining consensus first it as SlimVirgin did on PPol and RS. Rangerdude 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Request for finding of ex post facto attitude changes

The Mower by Philip Larkin

The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found

A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,

Killed. It had been in the long grass.

I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.

Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world

Unmendably. Burial was no help:

Next morning I got up and it did not.

The first day after a death, the new absence

Is always the same; we should be careful

Of each other, we should be kind

While there is still time. SlimVirgin 07:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing by many is inherent to Misplaced Pages

1) Misplaced Pages is a wiki. As such the editing of any user's contributions by others is contemplated, indeed integral to the editing process. The editing page of any article contains the language If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it. (Bold in the original)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikistalking

2) Misplaced Pages:Harassment, a guideline, discusses application of the concept of Wikistalking as a type of harassment. This concept has been used to describe the behavior of several users who have been sanctioned because they followed other users around, correcting or adding to their edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith

3) It is difficult to differentiate between normal editing, harassment expressed as wikistalking, and monitoring of another editor for a legitimate purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I submit that it's not nearly as difficult to differentiate wikistalking from good monitoring as it may first appear. A simple test to ask is whether or not the following is abiding by WP:FAITH and Misplaced Pages:Civility, both of which are referenced in the applicable WP:HA guideline. I would argue that excessively following another editor who is engaged in good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia is a breach of WP:FAITH, as it assumes that editor is deserving of monitoring by self-appointed scrutinizers, which is inherently a bad faith assumption. Whereas monitoring somebody who engages in vandalism or has a clear record of bad grammar and poor language use would be legitimate, monitoring somebody who is engaged in good faith edits would not be. I would also argue, per the WP:HA guideline, that constantly nitpicking another user's edits where no policy or guideline violation exists is a breach of Misplaced Pages:Civility. An example of this would be constantly rewording another editor's contributions in cases where the original displayed correct grammar and reasonably accurate content. Rangerdude 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I submit that it is an inherent self-contradiction to profess adherence to good faith while simultaneously stalking another editor based upon a bad faith assumption about his motives. I also submit that Willmcw made an assumption about my motives as indicated by his admission that he has "more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits" since encountering my earliest IP contributions . And finally, I submit that Willmcw's assumption about my motives was made in clear bad faith, as demonstrated by the fact that he falsely and without evidence concluded I was the author of another IP editor's POV contributions located http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=William_Quantrill&diff=next&oldid=8800631 here] and allowed that false conclusion to influence his behavior toward me including, among other things, his decision to stalk me. Rangerdude 03:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

2 Quoting from the policy, WP:AGF:

• As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. What you should not do is act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Misplaced Pages you disagree with. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people you find hard to work with. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either; it means they annoy you. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.
• Correcting someone's error (even if you think it was deliberate) is better than accusing him or her of lying because the person is likely to take it in a good natured fashion. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.

Comparing the comments of Rangerdude compare to my own comments, I see that RD frequently scolds editors and challenges their intent, even stating that they are trying to harm the project or insert a POV. By comparison, I rarely comment on any editor's intent.

AGF calls for simply fixing a problem rather than making an issue about it. That is what I have tried to do. OTOH, Rangerdude seems to make a big deal about every correction he decides to make, often using them as springboards for comments about editors. While I have found problem edits by Rangerdude, have tried to correct them as best I can, and have even drawn attention to them on occastion, I have always tried to avoid making any reference to Rangerdude's intentions. Only in a few cases, such as this arbitration, have I done so. AGF also says that just because someone is annoying you it does mean you should assume bad faith about them. Finally, I do assume that Rangerdude believes he is acting in Misplaced Pages's best interest. -Willmcw 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

4) Organizing and engaging in factional struggle violates Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a legal system

4.1 Nor is it a legal system bound by bureaucratic rules or subject to Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering, see Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The term wikilawyering appears to be another neologism created explicitly for this arbitration and has no standing in any wikipedia policies or guidelines. Rangerdude 20:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
2. "Wikistalking" is also a neologism, though slightly older. Until it was first used in an RfAr it also had no precedent. -Willmcw 02:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Though the formal definition page for the term 'wikilawyering' may be a recent creation, the word existed well before this arbitration case: . The derivation from the more general–and much older–term 'rules lawyer(ing)' is obvious and straightforward. Whether the term is a neologism or not is moot—the arbitration case should address the behaviour in question rather than the terminology used to describe that behaviour. The page Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering is being used for clarity's sake to house a definition for the term used in the proposed principle; it is not being used as a policy statement. (The policy in question is WP:NOT, which has long stated "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines.") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Note: I believe Fred created the page in response to Zephram Stark's complaint that Wikilawyering wasn't defined. Carbonite | Talk 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The term wikilawyering has come into common use among the arbitrators due to our observations of the behavior. Defining it on a page is an attempt to give some scope to this concept which, having been used among ourselves, is now being used in decisions, as we use it, it is good that we define it. Fred Bauder 16:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deportment

5) Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks provide that a user is required to deal courteously and respectfully with other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

6) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

7) Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith provides that users are required to assume that other editors are engaged in a good faith effort to advance the purposes of Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. WP:AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring. AGF is becoming one of our most-commonly miscited policies. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Don't dwell on the past

8) Editing Misplaced Pages involves being able to get along with thousands of other users who have very different personalities and POVs. Disputes are inevitable, but these should not be allowed to degenerate into mudslinging across different articles and talk pages. Users have to be willing and able to put disputes behind them and move on.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Forgive and forget, move on. If you have been here for a few years and have at least some backbone you will have been in disputes with other editors including some who are administrators or have other responsibilities. Holding grudges and settling scores is wholly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I added this as a suggested principle because I feel this case has come to the arbitration committee because RD was unable to let go of whatever the original grievance was, and has posted literally thousands of words about it on various talk pages. This is common to many disputes on Misplaced Pages, some of which end up before the arbcom and some of which just go grumbling on causing trouble for all concerned and creating toxic talk pages for months on end. Because everything that happens between editors is written down and recorded, it can be tempting to go off in search of diffs to show how terrible your opponent has been in the past. Being willing not to do that, even when you feel you've been wronged, is essential to avoiding bad wikikarma, so that editors aren't constantly weighed down by the effects of their past mistakes. SlimVirgin 11:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree. Bringing up past editorial transgressions without resolution does not bring us towards building consensus on articles. We all need to focus on the edits, not the editors. Once matters have been resolved, they should not be continually revisited. That is just divisive. -Willmcw 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   My own evidence of past behavior by Rangerdude is not intended as a complaint about that behavior, as previously explained. It is simply presented in order to show my view of his editing at the time, and to show a long-standing pattern.-Willmcw 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

3. While I agree with the principle that putting the past behind us is probably the only real way to resolve this dispute in the future, I will note that I find it odd that the very same editors who are accusing me of dwelling on the past have assembled lengthy lists in their complaints dating back to December 2004 when I was still editing as an anon IP. I find it similarly odd that one of the editors stating his concurrence with this principle has made my participation in a dispute on the Jim Robinson article last April - a dispute that he was not even a participant in - a central part of his complaint against me. Seems to me like a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do" Rangerdude 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll also add that despite all the rationalizations offered by the very same editors who accuse me of "dwelling in the past" etc. for their own tendencies to focus upon disputes from last December or January or February or March or April, the hypocrisy is inherent. Katefan0, for example, did not hesitate to bring our January 2005 dispute on Sheila Jackson Lee into the Houston Chronicle dispute that May , nor did Willmcw hesitate to assemble a stalking list of every article I had ever edited . If dwelling in the past is a problem, it's a problem without special exemptions or qualifications and the accusers here are just as guilty of it as anyone else, if not more so. Rangerdude 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Outlining past actions that show a pattern of behavior over time as part of an arbitration proceeding is very different than airing past grievances regularly when those editors encounter one another on unrelated articles. · Katefan0 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rangerdude's editing

1) Rangerdude (talk · contribs) generally edits articles which relate to Southern conservative themes often related to Texas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rangerdude's accusations of wikistalking

2) It is Rangerdude's contention that Willmcw (talk · contribs) has engaged in Wikistalking of him and provides an extensive list of examples Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Wikistalking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This list is so extensive that I have not attempted to respond to individual items. However I am prepared to discuss any edits that ArbCom members would like an explanation of. -Willmcw 02:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Examination of evidence of Wikistalking offered by Rangerdude

3) Examination of the evidence of instances of Wikistaking offered by Rangerdude, for example, the edit history of Justice at the Gate, the edit history of The Real Lincoln, Edits to Rick Perry by Rangerdude: immediately followed by an edit by Willmcw show only normal editing despite their proximity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. No conclusion as I am still examining these contentions. Fred Bauder 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I disagree strongly that the followup edits displayed in cases such as these are coincidental in nature and have reason to believe that the following was intentional. This is particularly clear in cases such as Olbers' paradox - an article on an obscure astronomy topic that is unrelated to anything Willmcw has ever shown an interest in. I edited here on February 10th and Willmcw stalked me here for followups on February 11th . Given the obscurity of the topic there is no possible way Willmcw would've happened upon it in the direct proximity of my edits other than to follow me there. Another case is John Baylor - a stub I created on July 5th. That Willmcw showed up there only a few hours later is anything but coincidental. Another one is Benjamin Tucker, an obscure article I edited on August 10th. Willmcw appeared for followups 5 days later . Arizona Territory (CSA) - I edited on July 5th, Willmcw shows up hours later. In virtually all of these cases the edits involved articles that Willmcw had never shown an interest in before until I made an edit to them. Then, anywhere from a few moments to a few days later, that he's suddenly there taking an interest in them is anything but coincidental or "normal" editing within the bounds of Misplaced Pages's harassment standards. Rangerdude 18:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

While he is obviously using your contributions as a guide to where to go next, he is often researching the subject and adding significant material to the articles and . Wikistalking generally refers to unproductive harassment. His efforts seem to substantially improve the articles in most cases. Fred Bauder 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If he were trying to improve the articles he would've remained there and continued to make additions to them. In most cases he did not do that. Articles like Olbers' Paradox were one-time hits that he's never since revisited. In fact, the only ones he ever lingers at are places where he succeeded in stirring up disputes, revert wars, or other disruptive behavior like the Claremont Institute article. Rangerdude 18:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it curious that Willmcw is claiming here that he had a good reason to be on all of those articles other than following me to them, yet in his own evidence statement he openly admits that he follows me around wikipedia: "Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits." He also indicates that he's been doing this since around last December and January. Since he's now admitted it this question is largely moot. The next step then is to ask the next obvious question: why did he start following me? Rangerdude 04:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Regarding my edits that Rangerdude discusses above:

• Olbers' paradox. Indeed, I saw this on RD's contributions list and was curious. I made small correction.
• John Baylor. I turned an unreferenced, one-fact stub into a short article, with references and categories. I recall I followed a newly-blue link from Arizona Territory (CSA) to the article. If this is wikstalking then Misplaced Pages needs more of it.
• Benjamin Tucker. In previous Wikistalking cases, the perpetrators were stalking editors to every edit on a daily basis. In this instance, five days passed between our edits, and my edit was to format a blockquote just added by a third-party. That hardly seems like an attempt to harass Rangerdude. In fact, he referred to Lysander Spooner on 07:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) on a page I watch. The Spooner article mentions Tucker, an anarchist now regarded as a hero by anarcho-libertarians. I also follow articles in that topic, so Tucker is not that obscure to me.
• Arizona Territory (CSA). Rangerdude basically invited me to look at the article at 5 July 2005 00:10. I guess he decided to look too, and made a large edit. I later asked about the map, with which Rangerdude was unassociated, both on the article talk page and on the image talk page. The question had nothing to do with RD, and he didn't repond to it either.

Furthermore, Rangerdude says that, In fact, the only ones he ever lingers at are places where he succeeded in stirring up disputes, revert wars, or other disruptive behavior like the Claremont Institute article. This is not true. There are a number of articles which Rangerdude edited first, which I edited later, and which I have continued to improve or protect from vandalism. From his own list, Thomas DiLorenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Clyde N. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a sub-stub by Rangerdude), Rick Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Donald Livingston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (another sub-stub, speedy deleted once due to no assertion of notability), Robert Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Southern Partisan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Origins of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Willmcw 05:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Factional struggle by Rangerdude

4) Rangerdude sees himself, and other users, as being engaged in a struggle with Willmcw. This has involved offering gratuitous advice to users Willmcw is engaged with , and . These posts sometimes contain personal attacks such as this one, "Willmcw is just about the worst that wikipedia has to offer in terms of an abusive left wing point of view pushing stalker who thrives on personal harassment, agitation, and badgering other editors"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I would submit that this is a direct product of the wikistalking that Willmcw has engaged in against myself and several other users. When I began editing Misplaced Pages as a registered user, I created and significantly expanded the content of several dozen articles. For example, I essentially wrote the entire Walker Tariff and Morrill Tariff, which were tiny stubs when I arrived. In late January I first encountered Willmcw on neo-confederate, where we had a long but relatively productive editing dispute that resulted in an expanded article. The dispute was very tedious at points and involved near-constant nitpicking. From that point forward, he started following my edits and I began encountering Willmcw at almost every article I tried to contribute to. Within a few months I found myself unable to contribute much of anything to wikipedia without having it followed by Willmcw, who essentially appointed himself to monitor my edits and stir up disputes with me despite no breach of WP:FAITH on my part. Every time I tried to contribute to an article a time consuming and contentious editing dispute soon happened and the other dispute participant was always Willmcw, who had followed me to that article. This happened on Morrill Tariff, where he followed me. It also happened on Claremont Institute, on Black Codes, on James M. McPherson, on Border States (Civil War), on Ludwig von Mises Institute, and several others. I soon found myself unable to make constructive additions to wikipedia without becoming instantly mired in an editing dispute with Willmcw, who followed me to wherever I was editing and began dispute warring in any way he could. This created a "struggle" in the sense that I had to "struggle" with Willmcw to simply engage in everyday editing activities because he would seek me out and dispute my edits whenever and wherever he could. A good example of this can be seen at Border States (Civil War). On July 4th another editor added historically erronious material to the article from an unverified website . Noting the error, I reverted this edit and posted documentation on the Talk page . Moments later Willmcw stalked me to this article and reverted back to the historically erronious version without explanation and started a dispute war over the article - all for no other reason than the fact that I'm the one who made the change. Rangerdude 19:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The situation with respect to Arizona Territory is not that clear. It would seem to me that all 3 links were quite useful (although not in the Border States article. Fred Bauder 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred - It's not a matter of useful links but a matter of historical accuracy, and that accuracy was documented on the talk page and elsewhere. The link added by JimWae was historically inaccurate about Mesilla, New Mexico's allegiance during the civil war. It claimed that Mesilla was "captured" by the Confederacy in July 1861, but historically Mesilla adopted a secession ordinance voluntarily aligning itself with the Confederacy the previous March. I documented this on the talk page with an explicit note to check it following the corrections I made. Willmcw ignored that note and tried to start a revert war on the grounds that I was the one who added it, largely because he didn't know what he was talking about. Anyone who has studied the Battle of Mesilla in the civil war also knows that the town was Confederate. This is documented at the highly reputable Handbook of Texas put out by the University of Texas : "His (Baylor's) Texans forded the Rio Grande and early that afternoon entered nearby Mesilla, a strongly pro-Confederate community. With 380 infantry and mounted riflemen, plus howitzers, Union major Isaac Lynde approached Mesilla from the south on July 25. Baylor rejected his demand for surrender, and Lynde ordered his artillery to open fire." As this article shows it was the Union troops that were attacking and trying to capture Mesilla, not the Confederates who actually defended it. Rangerdude 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I would also like to comment that the statement above that claims I "offered gratuitous advice" about Willmcw to other users is demonstrably false. In reality, my advice has been repeatedly solicited by other editors who have experienced Wikistalking and other harassment problems by Willmcw and were seeking help in how to deal with him. Example: This note to Steve_Espinola was a response to solicited advise he sought on my talk page approximately an hour and a half earlier. This note to Agiantman was a response to solicited advise he sought on my talk page a couple hours earlier . In fact, several other editors have who have experienced stalking problems or other harassment by Willmcw have seen this Arbcom case and other materials related to it then solicited my advise and help in dealing with him (e.g. ) - a fact that is indicative his abuse is widespread and has been directed at many other users. I will also note that far from being a personal attack, my description of Willmcw as a "left wing point of view pusher" is accurate, as is my description of him as a stalker and person who engages in harassment. As these comments were made in the direct context of a response to other wikipedia users who had complained to me of stalking, harassment, and/or POV pushing by Willmcw, they were material to the issue of his behavior rather than being attacks on his person. Rangerdude 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you call someone a moron we don't ask them to take an IQ test; likewise, if you call someone a "left wing point of view pusher" whether they are or not, you are still making a personal attack Fred Bauder 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that "left wing" is an insult then? I still differ, as it has been my contention from the start of this arbitration that Willmcw pushes a strong left wing point of view and I do not see how stating that complaint with his editing practices is anything more than a complaint. If you still believe otherwise though, I will ask you to apply the standard you are using against me consistently with the other editors in this dispute. That would mean making a similar determination from the statement of Willmcw when he said I am "a POV warrior with a strongly pro/neo-confederate bias" and to Katefan0 when she made "factional" instigations against me by repeatedly commenting about me on Willmcw's talk page, to wit: "obvious POV warriors like Rangerdude" and . If you're going to define and make determinations about the rules, they should be applied to all parties consistently. Rangerdude 05:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Fred Bauder: A question. Why is a personal attack qualified by adding "left wing"? Why does calling someone a "left wing point of view pusher" constitute a personal attack, whereas the generic, everyday, unqualified "point of view pusher" not constitute a personal attack. Help me out, please. Thank you. nobs 01:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Either one would be in the context Rangerdude is using it. Fred Bauder 02:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

On the above: I justifiably referred to Rangerdude as a biased editor when seeking help with what I saw as biased edits. But that is very different from saying he's just about the worst that wikipedia has to offer · Katefan0 05:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is "justifiable" for Katefan0 to call me an "obvious POV warrior" in a comment to another poster, then it should be justifiable for me to call Willmcw a "left wing point of view pusher" in a comment to another poster as well. If one is a personal attack though, then consistency says so is the other. My statement identifying Willmcw as the "worst" of this type of POV pusher is a statement of the magnitude of his behavior in this area, indicating it is particularly eggregious. Rangerdude 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Rangerdude

5) Rangerdude has made personal attacks , "Willmcw is just about the worst that wikipedia has to offer in terms of an abusive left wing point of view pushing stalker who thrives on personal harassment, agitation, and badgering other editors"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. If this is to be an issue within the finding, I will ask the Arbcom to also consider its application to the other parties in the dispute, User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin. Specifically, Willmcw has made personal attacks "I don't get paid by the LVMI" (edit description) and "I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda regarding their institution." to User:nskinsella and SlimVirgin has made personal attacks "You're a disruptive editor" (to Rangerdude) and "Rangerdude accused of the very thing he was posting about. How irritating." and "Oh dear, Rangerdude himself is now accused of wikistalking." Rangerdude 21:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that you are disruptive and have also violated Misplaced Pages:harassment, but taunting you is wrong. Fred Bauder 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're recognizing that the other side isn't infallable either Fred, though it troubles me that you cannot so much as make a clear recognition of but a single of the many documented wrongs they've engaged in without qualifying it in a way that also accuses me of wrongdoing. This chain of events is leading to an impression of my own about the way you are handling this case, which leads me to feel as if it is not being fairly evaluated. Thus far, you seem to have largely overlooked the majority of the evidence I've presented while giving full treatment to Willmcw's case (a case which, BTW, was voted to be merged into my original case against him, not the other way around). While you are certainly free to come to your own conclusions, I do ask for a fair and neutral hearing here. The fact that you've apparently already decided to characterize me as "disruptive," as a POV pusher, and as having made "personal attacks" while (1) reaching such conclusions largely upon the word of the other side in this dispute and upon the made-up neologism that I somehow have bad "wikikarma" (2) generally neglecting what are IMHO far more eggregious violations of those policies from that side, leads me to wonder whether a fair hearing is truly being given. Thus far, I see multiple proposed votes on allegations of whether I've violated policy yet absolutely nothing seeking a determination or vote on whether the other editors from my original complaint, Willmcw and SlimVirgin, have violated policy. In fact the carefully qualified informal comment above is the only thing you've even posted to date that suggests even paying attention to any wrongdoing either of them have committed. I do not mean to be unduly critical of you or anyone else, but I certainly do not feel at this moment as if the arbitration is being conducted in a manner that is giving a fair hearing to both sides. As I have also posted a recusal request for any arbitrator with personal biases from this case, I hope that you would disclose any of these and take the appropriate action per the arbitration policy should they indeed exist. Thanks for your consideration. Rangerdude 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The /Workshop process is quite messy. Hardly anyone who makes decision muses in public, but basically that is what is happening here. In contrast to what you believe, I started working from your evidence and looked at a few instances of what you claim to be Wikistalking. While thinking about it, I did coin the neologism Misplaced Pages:Wikikarma and wrote a project page about it, but that's my job. Prior to this arbitration I have not followed your activities and had no opinion on them coming in. If I had had rows with you in the past I would have recused. Fred Bauder 16:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred - That's a reasonable enough explanation, and I suppose an unfortunate feature of having a public workshop - musings get put out into the open from the start. I do still have a concern about fairness in this hearing and would accordingly ask that you review the newly introduced evidence regarding the mistaken IP identification at the William Quantrill article, which appears to have been a major event in Willmcw's decision to follow me. Rangerdude 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Discourtesy by Rangerdude

6) Rangerdude has been discourteous to other editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This question is more absurdity. The alleged "discourtesy" here was in reality a reasonable comment posted in response to User:Jonathan Christensen directly following a post in which he made a completely unprovoked, condescending, and downright belligerent personal attack upon me. Here are just a few samples from that post by Jonathan Christensen, all of which were directed at me:

• "Please, get a clue about what is actually going on here."
• ":Oooh, that's pretty unilateral, isn't it? I dunno, I guess Wakeforest had better keep on being nice and accepting, since I was being soooo unilateral."
• "Damn him and his unilateral ways, asking people to explain themselves not once, but twice!"
• "So, I need to go over where now to make my case? Perhaps I need to join the Society of Unilateralists, or the Society of Sock Puppeteers, so that I can make my case more effectively, as Wakeforest obviously seems to have convinced you that way?"

Please note that all of the above was Jonathan Christensen's response to multiple posts in which I politely asked him to be mindful of the talk page on the article he had blanked and merged twice in about an hour's time. At the time of this incident, three separate editors (myself and two others) had posted comments asking him not to blank the article without discussion. He responded in similar unprovoked hostility throughout the incident. If there was any discourtesy at all exhibited here, it was Jonathan Christensen's. Rangerdude 19:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reliance on technicalities by Rangerdude

7) Rangerdude sometimes attempts to rely on technicalities in his disputes with others .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This allegation is just plain absurd. There is nothing that's a "technicality" in the post given as an example. What you will find there however is reasonable comment to User:Jonathan Christensen asking him to abide by the VfD guidelines after he repeatedly and belligerently shunned efforts to discuss the dispute on the talk page.

Comment by others:

Violations by SlimVirgin

8) SlimVirgin has violated Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view by strongly criticizing Rangerdude's editing of a controversial article .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Can I see diffs, please, showing where I violated Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view? My concern with RD editing Chip Berlet is that for weeks he'd expressed strong animosity toward User:Cberlet, which included opening an RfC against him; then had argued that Chip and the company he works for, Political Research Associates, should not be used as a source for Misplaced Pages under the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources provision prohibiting "extremist" websites like Hamas and Stormfront from being used as anything but primary sources on themselves. He then went to Chip Berlet and started adding negative material, and also indicated that he intended to do a re-write. At that point, I told him I felt he shouldn't be editing the article, because of his strong bias against Chip. SlimVirgin 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   As to neutral point of view, he was trying to add a summary (not well written to be sure) of a negative viewpoint regarding Chip Berlet as is contemplated by our NPOV policy. Fred Bauder 03:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   I guess it your contention that Rangerdude was not editing in good faith. Thanks for the background information. If you feel it is relevant and not already in evidence, add it. Fred Bauder 03:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   If she has evidence I added anything that was in bad faith to the Chip Berlet article, I'd like to see it too. Berlet is a very liberal political figure who frequently makes public attacks on conservative political figures such as Horowitz. His attacks on conservatives were being used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages to criticize conservative groups such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), including a case where Berlet himself added a link to his own attack article on the LvMI . When I first read the Chip Berlet article I noticed that it was heavily biased toward presenting a favorable view of him including many parts that were taken almost directly from his own website's autobiography. I added the Horowitz criticisms for the purpose of balancing this out. They were fully cited criticisms and made in good faith. In fact, I even quoted from Berlet's own responses to Horowitz to make sure his side of their dispute was also represented! Rangerdude 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   You say "His attacks on conservatives were being used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages to criticize conservative groups" That too is quite acceptable under NPOV Fred Bauder 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

   As long as it is explicitly attributed to Berlet as his opinion that is fine. Trying to get sourced criticisms of Berlet expunged from the article about him was a problem though and was not a display of good faith. Rangerdude 04:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Fred, I've added more evidence in response to the suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF. It's at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF

   Summary: On July 25, Rangerdude opened an RfC against User:Cberlet. At the same time on several talk pages, he was criticizing Chip Berlet as an "extremist" and not someone who should be used as a source for Misplaced Pages. The criticism was extensive and vitriolic. Three days later, on July 28, Rangerdude added three paragraphs of criticism to Chip Berlet, thereby attacking Chip on three fronts: as a Misplaced Pages editor via the RfC; as a source for Misplaced Pages; and by adding criticism to his biography. The context made the edits look malicious. I therefore reduced the length of Rangerdude's criticism from 482 words (three paragraphs) to 118 words (one paragraph), and advised him that, given his animosity toward Cberlet, I felt he should not be editing Chip's biography. NPOV requires balance: an article with too much criticism isn't NPOV no matter how well-cited the edits are. SlimVirgin 21:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

3. The allegation of "malice" toward Chip Berlet posted above is completely unfounded. I did nothing more than attempt to apply NPOV balance to a favorable article about a highly partisan political figure and apply NPOV and WP:RS in places where that same figure's political and editorial opinions were being presented as factual and scholarly. A simple review of the paragraphs I added on the Horowitz dispute reveals this much, as I attempted to present the controversy with as much neutrality as possible - even going so far as to quote Chip Berlet's responses to Horowitz's charges! I did not use "vitriolic" language as SlimVirgin alleges, nor have I called for his exclusion as a source from Misplaced Pages. What I did say, however, is that Chip Berlet is a very controversial and partisan political source that writes material on the far left wing of the spectrum. As such, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources applies to the use of his material as a source. version of Reliable Sources that existed at the time of this incident before none other than SlimVirgin changed it ex post facto to support her current interpretation of the applicable clause here, stated "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political or religious 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." Based upon this provision, I requested that citations of editorial material by Chip Berlet should be explicitly identified as his opinion or interpretations. I made this request following the dispute on the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LVMI) article where two editors who are politically opposed to the LVMI - Willmcw and Cberlet - were inserting links to Berlet's highly biased political attacks on the LVMI as if they were factual citations (Cberlet in fact even added a self cite of his own material ). It should also be noted, as Nobs pointed out below, that a WP:OWN issue appears to exist in this dispute. User:Cberlet has made statements that strongly suggest he is "claiming ownership" over the Chip Berlet article, and SlimVirgin has edited it in a way that is sympathetic to these claims. Shortly after I added the Horowitz material to Chip Berlet, User:Cberlet posted a comment on its talk page conveying a claim of personal ownership and requesting that the Horowitz material be expunged since it was critical of him. Cberlet's edit description and title of this post was "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" and its message called the material I added "a giant wad of Horowitz screed on my Wiki entry" and asks that they be reduced to a link. I responded to this request with a defense of my edits on NPOV grounds that was straightforward and certainly not abusive as SlimVirgin has alleged . SlimVirgin responded the next day by carrying out Cberlet's request and chopped off the majority of the Horowitz material I had added. Cberlet's repeated references to Chip Berlet as "my" article and his requests aimed at controlling and removing critical content seem to violate WP:OWN's prohibition of this, as do SlimVirgin's edits aimed at carrying out his requests. Rangerdude 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

   I didn't say the edits were malicious. I said the context made them look malicious. SlimVirgin 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. The WP:OWN as applied to the Chip Berlet article and "sympathetic editors" requires fair and neutral scrutiny from Committee. nobs 18:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possible origin of dispute

1) According to Rangerdude his dispute with Willmcw had its origin on the article Neo-confederate; edit by Willmcw expanding scope of designation; edit by Rangerdude reducing scope of designation. See Talk:Neo-confederate/archive1, Talk:Neo-confederate/archive2 and Talk:Neo-confederate

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The designation of a person or group as "neo-confederate" has a pejorative connotation signifying to some affiliation with white supremacy Fred Bauder 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
2. In some sources there is shotgun smearing reminiscent of McCarthyism Fred Bauder 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
3. What begins as collaboration gradually deteriorates to comments like this: "The bottom line: quit shilling for Sebesta through this article and let what needs to be said be said.Rangerdude 02:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)" Fred Bauder 18:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
4. See Talk:Neo-confederate#Don.27t_Disrupt_Wikipedia_to_Prove_a_Point where stalking accusations begin. Fred Bauder 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The dispute at Neo-confederate began earlier. Rangerdude, then-unregistered 68.92.217.49 (talk · contribs), made this edit on , and I made this edit hours later . The next day RD added the term to List of political epithets, , which I edited the day after . -Willmcw 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Another early conflict (though I mostly sat back in dismay) concerned Sheila Jackson Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rangerdude, editing as under various IPs and his username, added 700 words of derogatory information over one-month period to the previously NPOV 96-word stub.

I apologize if I have made any mistakes in assigning IP edits, and if Rangerdude believes that he did not make the second William Quantrill edit then I retract the evidence. Here are the IP addresses which I have assumed were used by Rangerdude.

• 68.88.14.14 (talk · contribs) (disputed by Rangerdude)
• 68.90.42.48 (talk · contribs)
• 68.92.217.49 (talk · contribs)
• 68.92.61.2 (talk · contribs)
• 68.100.161.97 (talk · contribs)
• 68.105.184.235 (talk · contribs)
• 216.84.6.22 (talk · contribs) (disputed by Rangerdude)

I am not complaining about RD's behavior 11 months ago. I mention his early edits for two reasons - to explain what I was seeing as another editor, and to illustrate that some behaviors have been consistent. -Willmcw 06:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Will - You've done it again. Twice. 216.84.6.22 isn't mine either. Nor is 68.88.14.14. You see, this is the danger of speculating about IP address ownership and making bad faith assumptions about the assumed author in violation of WP:FAITH. You've apparently put a great deal of time into looking for anon IP addresses that you believe were mine and assigning their edits to me, and with very inaccurate results at that. What this shows is that since the moment I registered on wikipedia you've assumed that many anon IP's and edits I had nothing to do with were mine and you've treated me as if I were responsible for them. Considering that the anon IP's you assigned to me contained a particularly eggregious POV edit on the Quantrill article (an edit you also assigned primary importance to in justifying your decision to stalk me), it is a fair assertion for me to make that you have NEVER exercised the good faith assumption required by WP:FAITH since the very first moment we met. You could not have assumed good faith because you incorrectly assumed I was the author of many edits I did not make and treated me as if I were responsible for them. Just about everything else in our dispute since then seems to trace back to those mistaken cases of identity, hence your treatment of me when I first registered and encountered you, my reaction to you when you followed me, and my conclusion that you were persecuting my edits by stalking them. Rangerdude 07:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw's comment above about the origin of this dispute is incorrect, and only goes to demonstrate that he has stalked me all the way back to my first IP edits when I discovered wikipedia. I had no idead who or what Willmcw even was at either the first edit on neo-confederate or the Sheila Jackson Lee article. I did not communicate with him then and did not even know he was making followup changes, as he describes. The first significant communications between us were on neo-confederate, as identified by Fred Bauder above and the present dispute traces back continuously to that moment. Rangerdude 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My thought at this point is that as you consistently edit from a point of view, it is to be expected that others will take an interest in your editing and may "stalk" you. I fail to see anything wrong with that. Fred Bauder 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

According to WP:HA's precedents on wikistalking "It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith" and even after bad faith occurs "monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy." I believe that standard is a very fair and reasonable one. Otherwise, a stalker could claim something as small as a single POV edit on one article as "justification" to follow and harass somebody else's edits all over wikipedia and on any subject. It also draws a needed line between legitimate POV balancing and stalking to nitpick or harass. Even if one were to characterize my edits as POV (and I contend that in many cases my POV was significantly less of a problem than the ones being pushed by the person stalking me - e.g. see ), they were made in good faith. While I would not mind a person of an opposite POV working with me on political article edits of a common interest to us both where we could each serve as "checks and balances" against each others' POV's, I believe it is fair to say that Willmcw's stalking of me far exceeded that when he started showing up at completely unrelated articles, stubs, and just about everything else I did on wikipedia. What started as a relatively productive disagreement on neo-confederate moved quickly into him following me to just about every article I edited, political or not, to nitpick and stir up disputes. That is where I contend he crossed the line and engaged in wikistalking. Rangerdude 05:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Origin of dispute comment. Willmcw recently stated on the evidence page that he began following my edits after he became "very concerned" over a December 25th anon IP edit made to the William Quantrill article located at . He describes this as "a very POV edit" that "took a Southern Civil War guerilla who had been previously described as a terrorist and turned him into a hero" and states that "Since then I've more or less kept an eye on Rangerdude's edits." This claim is very telling because I did not even author the William Quantrill edit he attributes to me! It was made by an anon IP 64.216.155.74, which I have never used and which has only made that one edit to wikipedia and no other . If we go by Willmcw is now revealing about the origin of his habit of following me, it is clear that he began doing so for an offense that I did not even commit! I submit that this is evidence of a severe WP:FAITH breach on his part, and one that has had the extremely unfortunate consequence of fostering hostility between us since before I even knew who Willmcw was or that he was following my edits. Rangerdude 06:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. We see the same shotgun smearing here where a staff member of a U.S. Congressional subcommittee is called a "holocaust denier", and "affiliated" with neo-nazis. nobs 21:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly guilt by association. I wonder if anyone could not know who they were dealing with. Fred Bauder 03:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute at Chip Berlet

2) Rangerdude was involved with a dispute with SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) at the article Chip Berlet with respect to his characterization of the content of an article strongly critical of Chip Berlet . Rangerdude's characterization "Berlet's work "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse,' including among the political left." is present in the link but somewhat out of context: the original being: "His radical leftist ideology has caused him to lessen true fascism by smearing every non-Stalinist with totalitarian motivations. His attacks of fellow left-wingers has squashed vigorous debate and discourse." SlimVirgin's objection includes an invitation for Rangerdude to cease editing the article on the basis of alleged malice and both raises a poorly founded liability threat to Misplaced Pages and threatens unspecified "further action"

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I guess the focus needs to be on SlimVirgin's animosity toward an other editor in good standing rather than on the rather lame language Rangerdude is promoting. Fred Bauder 19:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I guess SlimVirgin made a good faith mistake with respect to thinking RangerDude was creating a liability problem by including the Horowitz material in the article. (The material is properly ascribed, not assertions by Rangerdude). I know many editors admire cberlet and understand the urge to support him, but he is a controversial figure and criticism by both the radical right and mainstream critics may legitimately be included in the article. As to the proportion of favorable and unfavorable coverage and word counts, the cure is to round out the favorable and neutral information, not to exclude or limit what is arguably a significant viewpoint regarding the subject. (We went through this at the United States Air Force Academy where material regarding the Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal made up a disproportionate amount of the article. There was no basis for removing it on that account, but eventually a few folks showed up and added material to the Academy article while the assault article became extensive enough to be its own article.) Fred Bauder 14:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The full context of what Fred Bauder alleges to be "rather lame language" in my addition seems to reveal otherwise. Here is the quote in full, indicating that the quote is attributed directly to its author:

   Since then, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried a response from Berlet accusing Horowitz and the CSPC of using "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States," , a further rejoinder from Horowitz addressed to Dees, and an article by Chris Arabia harshly critical of Berlet in which he claims that Berlet's work creates the "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand" and "has squashed vigorous debate and discourse," including among the political left.

   As you can plainly see, my addidition did not claim that "Berlet's work has squashed vigorous debate and discourse" as Fred's characterization of it implied. Rather, I explicitly attributed this opinion to Chris Arabia of David Horowitz's organization, which is what WP:CITE says to do for political viewpoints. Rangerdude 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

2. I harbored no animosity toward Rangerdude. I hadn't edited an article with him before. But I'd noticed that he appeared to harbor animosity against Chip. He had tried to have Chip deemed an unreliable source for Misplaced Pages. He had opened an RfC against User:Cberlet. He had tried to remove a diagram created by Chip from (as I recall) Anti-Semitism just because Chip had drawn it. I therefore felt he was in danger of allowing his feelings toward User:Cberlet to influence his editing of Chip Berlet, and might edit the article with what looked like malice. I therefore said I felt he should stop editing it. When I said I was considering taking the matter further, I meant that I was thinking of alerting Jimbo, or taking steps in the dispute-resolution process. I felt that Rangerdude's actions toward Willmcw and Cberlet amounted to harassment, and that that shouldn't be allowed to affect the editing of a biography in the main namespace. SlimVirgin 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. See Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 114-131. (PDF) ISBN 0-993592-96-5 for documentation up to 1998 from a verifiable reputable source (recommended by the Nizkor Project:

"The two principle officers of PRA have always been Jean Hardisty, Director, and John Foster "Chip" Berlet, Analyst...There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information." (p. 114-115)

Applicable Misplaced Pages Policy: WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources,

such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages nobs 22:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Watchdog article is on a site which redirects to http://www.volksfrontinternational.com/ Fred Bauder 03:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Watchdogs book by Laird Wilcox that you cite above is self-published, according to Amazon, and this is the quality of sources you've been trying to use at Chip Berlet, which is part of the problem, Nobs. We can't use self-published opinion in order to insult people. SlimVirgin 02:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't PRA also "self publish" its own highly opinionated attack pieces on conservative groups? Rangerdude 03:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation "to insult people"; I am a qualified historian and only concerned about valid, historical research matters. nobs 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PRA is a professional research group, not one individual. If Wilcox has to self-publish, it might be because he couldn't find a publisher. But whatever the reason, it's another mark against using that book as a source, especially when the claim it's currently being used for at Chip Berlet is to say he used to be associated with an organization that harbored terrorists. Strong claims like this need extremely good references to back them up, not self-published tiny-minority views. Nobs, I didn't mean to imply you're doing it in order to insult Chip. I'm saying the material does, as a matter of fact, insult him, and therefore the source has to be a good one. SlimVirgin 03:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"John George and Laird Wilcox, two of the foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism, state that this definition reflects a common proposition about extremist behavior: it is more an 'issue of style than of content.' What the extremist believes is less important than what behavior he exhibits. Rather, extremism can cut across the political spectrum."

quoted in Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 ; I'm assuming The Military Law Review is a peer reviewed journal, but go ahead and check that out for me if you will. Thank you. nobs 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And what does the above have to do with Chip Berlet? SlimVirgin 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the qualification of who Mr. Laird Wilcox is. nobs 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin protecting an article which she was actively editing

On October 15 SlimVirgin, protected the article Islamophobia using the vprotect template (protected due to vandalism) . She was at that time an active editor of the article having made substantial edits on October 14, and October 15 . She again protected the article on October 23

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. On its face this appears true. I notice that some anonymous editors had been making some aggressive edits and yuber was reverting them, but neither had made many edits. Fred Bauder 14:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Although SlimVirgin protected the article I don't see any evidence from the history of the article that anyone was contesting her edits of the article nor that at the time she protected in the article she was involved in a conflict over its content. Fred Bauder 14:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Parties:

Comment by Others:

General discussion

Wikistalking

It is rather difficult to distinguish between Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking, normal editing and Misplaced Pages:Wikikarma, the consequences of your editing patterns. See Rangerdude's viewpoint and Willmcw's viewpoint

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. "wikistalking is done "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" - again something that can be easily identified in the tone and pattern of behavior of the accused stalker and the response of the person he's following." So it says, but even to the emotionally sensitive it is not Fred Bauder 03:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I again disagree that this is a difficult distinction at all. Misplaced Pages:Wikikarma is a neologism of no precedent or policy standing, but Wikistalking is backed by extensive precedent and explicit definitions under the WP:HA guideline. For example, WP:HA says "It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith" and indicates WP:FAITH is the standard by which this is determined. It also says "Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy." This defines when monitoring would be appropriate (an editor who edits in bad faith), but also imposes reasonable limitations on monitor abuse even in that case. WP:HA also states that wikistalking is done "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" - again something that can be easily identified in the tone and pattern of behavior of the accused stalker and the response of the person he's following. Rangerdude 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others: