Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Proposed decision

I noticed that Fred Bauder is proposing several findings for this case. I would like to state my objection and response to several of them as follows.

Quite frankly, I consider the finding proposed by Fred Bauder here to be ridiculous on several counts. First, it does not even define its terms that I've engaged in "aggressive and tendentious" POV editing. Seeing as he also uses this term - "aggressive and tendentious" - as a criterion in which he proposes blocks be imposed against me, his failure to properly define it is wide open to abuse and could be theoretically used by any admin - including Willmcw or SlimVirgin - to block me for just about anything they define it as being, even if they were clearly in the wrong as many cases of evidence from this Arbcom have shown them to be in the past.

This finding is also factually erronious on several counts. It asserts that my alleged POV editing "has drawn the attention of the Wikipedia administrators Slimvirgin and Willmcw." This is not true. Willmcw claims that he took notice of my editing around December 26, 2004 in response to this edit on Morris Dees (which was not POV and in fact removed existing POV terminology from the article by rephrasing it). Willmcw was not an Administrator at this time and did not become one until June 2005. By the time he became an admin, he had already been following my edits for over six months. Second, SlimVirgin did not come to this dispute as a result of my allegedly POV edits. She entered this dispute in response to an admin incident board complaint and a user RfC I made against Willmcw for his behavior in several disputes with me.

I'd also like to point out that this "finding" does not allege or document any specific policy violation on my part and instead only links to Willmcw's evidence page, which, as I have noted in my response here, is little more than a lengthy list of virtually every edit I've ever made that Willmcw personally disagrees with. Included are Willmcw's false identification of me as an anon IP editor, a spurious straw man argument that makes a list of every single time I ever used the word "controversy" in any context, and complaints about the simple fact that I participated in RfC's, RfA's etc. Rangerdude 01:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of this finding regarding Willmcw's David Duke incident needs to be seriously reevaluated. Right now this reads like a tiny "slap on the wrist," stating only that he "edited inappropriately" in "one instance." In fact, I contest that Willmcw's David Duke incident is a far more severe and direct violation of Wikipedia policy than any of the diffs he cites me for here, and on which basis Fred is apparently concluding that I am "aggressive and tendentious." Rangerdude 07:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I just found additional evidence that Willmcw made a similar attempt to insert White Supremacist sources into the Morris Dees article to discredit more legitimate critics. Willmcw made [this edit in response to one of my very first edits on Wikipedia. There was a paragraph in this article summarizing a critical investigative report about Dees by the Montgomery Advertisor that was a 1994 Pulitzer Prize finalist. In order to discredit the Advertisor investigation, Willmcw added a sentence attributing its findings to the Jubilee Newspaper - a publication of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement. This sort of thing shows that behavior like this is a pattern for Willmcw, not just an inappropriate slip up in "one instance." Rangerdude 07:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your point about Dees. Are you saying that some viewpoints are not allowed? That even though Dees devotes much of his work to criticizing white nationalist, neo-confederates, neo-nazis, etc, we should not include any response from them? -Willmcw 01:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understand it more than you let on, Will. The point about Dees is that it's inappropriate to strategically place low-repute white supremacist sources along side legitimate sources (such as the Montgomery Advertiser) making similar claims for the purpose of discrediting the latter. Since all the material in the original paragraph came from the Advertiser investigation, there was no need to cite the Jubilee Newspaper there. Rangerdude 18:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred's proposal here has similar problems to the first. He states that I have "inappropriately quarreled with" User:Cberlet yet nowhere has he offered evidence of one single edit I've made regarding this user that is wrong, disruptive, or in violation of Wikipedia policy. In fact, Fred's "evidence" that I did this is a link to an RfC I filed against Cberlet for his own behavior on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article after Cberlet repeatedly made vicious unprovoked personal attacks against me, such as the following:

his 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.--Cberlet 21:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[1][reply]

I believe I was fully justified in filing a user RfC against Cberlet over comments like this one and do not see how that can even remotely be considered "harassment" under any definition of the word, and certainly not under WP:HA.

Fred also proposes that I should be "admonished" for my dealings with Cberlet here. I ask, admonished for what? I did not do anything to the guy other than dispute his POV pushing at LVMI and add sourced info about his critics to bring his own article into closer compliance with NPOV. On the other hand, I have been viciously attacked by User:Cberlet several times such as in the quote above. In fact, that attack was made the very first day I even encountered Cberlet and well BEFORE I even edited any article involving his material. If anything, Cberlet should be admonished for his outright belligerent treatment of me from the very moment we first met. Any Arbcom member who wants to read the discussion between Chip Berlet and me on our very first encounter may do so here. You will see that I politely requested he review and discuss some of the controversial aspects of his edits on the talk page rather than revert warring, which was going on at that time. He responded in an outright rude, hostile, and condescending manner that refused all attempts at compromise or discussion.

Compare this (1 year probation against me where any admin can ban me for virtually any reason) versus this (1 day suspension for Willmcw). This is hardly fair sentencing by any reasonable standard. I get the long and far-reaching punishment for general "offenses" that aren't even named, specified, or documented whereas Willmcw gets a tiny slap on the wrist for a fully documented clear cut violation of several Wikipedia policies at the David Duke quote. Rangerdude 01:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This finding currently asserts that I harassed User:Cberlet, and as its only "evidence" offers a link to the RfC I filed against him (certified by 2 other editors) for making belligerent personal attacks against me such as this. I'm still waiting for anybody to produce so much as a single shred of evidence that I violated any wikipedia policy in my actions toward Cberlet. Without such evidence, this allegation should be dismissed. Rangerdude 20:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Fred Bauder's recent additions to the charge, the following post I made to the Ludwig von Mises Institute talk page was "harassment of User:Cberlet"

(EXAMPLE I)Cberlet - there's no need for hostility or rudeness. Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus and your edits should conform to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Many of yours did not as I have detailed above. Due to these problems I have politely asked you to post your desired additions and any pertinent revisions of them here on the talk page so that they may be worked on and a solution reached in compliance with WP:NPOV and all related source use guidelines. Simply throwing a fit and refusing to reconcile standing problems with the aforementioned edits despite explicit requests to do so is not in the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia, so 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 Rangerdude 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred also apparently considers this "harassment":

(EXAMPLE II)Cberlet - simply changing all the anonymous "critics" to read "SPLC" is not a rewrite. There are still multiple outstanding neutrality, sourcing, and formatting problems with your edits in general. As I have requested many times previously, 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 Rangerdude 20:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And this:

(EXAMPLE III)User:Cberlet is again reminded: No personal attacks on other editors. If you cannot conduct yourself in a mature and responsible fashion when addressing other editors the perception among other editors of your contributions to this article will diminish. You do not own wikipedia, Cberlet, and it is not a forum for you to promote left wing political viewpoints or berate other editors who do not share them. If you cannot control your political biases in accordance with Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV then you should avoid editing articles where they are prone to exhibit themselves strongly. Please try and keep it civil. Rangerdude 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet strangely, Fred seems to have no objection to what any of the reasonably polite and cooperative aforementioned posts were responding to, that is to say Cberlet's own posts. The post of mine above marked EXAMPLE I was a reply to Cberlet's post here in which he ignored NPOV objections I detailed about his edit and posted the following rude message:

Reverted. This is absurd.--Cberlet 19:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EXAMPLE II was a politely worded response to Cberlet's post making a "rewrite" of the main section that in fact only made a few minor word changes while retaining the same POV material.

EXAMPLE III was my response to Cberlet's post here in which he posted a rude personal attack on the LVMI, myself, and another editor who was also urging him to curtail his general rudeness on this talk page.

Very amusing. Fans of LvMI claiming they are not partisan. My God! I had no idea there was gambling in this establishment. (Your winnings sir). Round up the usual suspects!--Cberlet 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this, Fred, is your "evidence" of "harassment" it is safe to say that (1) your perception of this entire case is substantially skewed in a manner that overlooks Cberlet's belligerency and (2) quite frankly, your charges have no intrinsic merit at all. If this were a fair hearing I'd have a reasonable basis to seek dismissal of the entire matter. Unfortunately that's harder to do when the judge and jury are crooked... Rangerdude 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's truly amusing that Freddo and his gang of 10 are unwilling to even explain how ANY of the above diffs constitute "harassment" of Cberlet, who in fact instigated the hostilities through his own rudeness and personal attacks against me. So much for transparent decisions. Rangerdude 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With a motion to close now on the table, it's amusing that the Arbcom Star Chamber did not even bother to consider the wikistalking incidents by Willmcw that prompted this case in the very beginning, nor did they bother to examine the widespread personal attacks by SlimVirgin that were also a part of the original case. Instead, the whole thing has been a show trial from start to finish aimed at insulating and protecting two privileged administrators from penalty for their multiple transgressions, while simultaneously penalizing me for charges that are not even clearly stated, demonstrated by the evidence, or duly considered in a fair and judicious process. The events here are both sad and sickening, showing only the danger of allowing an agenda setter with multiple conflicts of interest to determine the voting criteria and even design of this case to the extent that he incorrectly merged it in defiance of the original arbcom vote and in a way that biased the subsequent case against me from the very first day forward. It also sadly illustrates lengths that a corrupt Arbcom will go to in order to protect and insulate its friends and allies by granting impunity for their transgressions, while simultaneously penalizing those whose only "offense" is to point them out in duly authorized manners and in full compliance with wikipedia policies. Should the arbcom decision be approved as it currently exists, I am content in my awareness that I have no power to stop it. I do not, however, accept or approve of the fundamentally corrupted and fraudulent findings that they have apparently made nor will I cease to state such disapproval in the appropriate forums of wikipedia, be they future efforts to reign in the abuses of this committee and its powers or future complaints against the same offenders for committing the same sort of grossly offensive policy violations. Rangerdude 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that depending on whatever ideological stripe you are stereotyped as determines whether or not your poop stinks. nobs 19:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]