User talk:Robert McClenon/Rangerdude

Statement of the dispute

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

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

Description

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

Willmcw

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

Cberlet

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Willmcw

1. [1] - Inserted irrelevant & unconnected quotations from known racist David Duke to discredit other mainstream sources that differed with his POV. Labelled this edit "more info on the SPLC" to suggest it was innoccuous
2. [2] - intentionally mislabelled edit description - he removed a NPOV phrasing about a source he favors that indicated its controversial nature, but described it in the edit line as simply "add citation"
3. [3] - Removed two sourced statements that differed with his POV, falsely characterized one of the sources as a "blog" as grounds for removal
4. [4] - Removed material rebutting a partisan source he added that was intended to balance the article per WP:NPOV, added unsourced guilt-by-association allegation about holocaust deniers - aimed at POV discrediting of article subject.
5. [5] - Addition of lengthy critical paragraph sourced entirely from an extremely partisan political website. Material was often portrayed as factual rather than the viewpoint of the partisan group - violates Wikipedia:Reliable sources
6. [6] [7] [8] - Addtl. repeat talk page misrepresentation of non-blog sources that differ with his POV as "blogs" as a basis to remove them.
7. [9] - Personal attack on the occupation and employment of User:Nskinsella. Nskinsella has fully and voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia that he is active with the LVMI. Willmcw nevertheless attacked him over this and attacked his motives, stating in the edit line to Nskinsella "I don't get paid by the LVMI" and stating in his message "I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda"

Cberlet

1. [10] - Personal attack in description line - reverted an extensively described and detailed revision of his earlier edit with request to reconcile NPOV problems on the talk page and attacked the editor requesting talk page discussion with allegation of "shameless censorchip of criticsm"
2. [11] [12] - revert warring over same passage
3. [13] - refusal to participate in talk page discussion over NPOV problems and other WP policy and guideline violations in his earlier edits
4. [14] - bad faith assumption and more personal attacks - accused editor seeking his participation in talk page discussion wiht "This is just censorship"
5. [15] - bad faith allegations in response to good faith effort to initiate talk page discussion
6. [16] - lengthy personal attack on editor User:Rangerdude posted to Willmcw, attack on motives as well: "This passive/aggressive baloney from Rangerdude is tiresome. He now rules the LvMI page with an iron fist, in a perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over. The iron first in the velvet glove--the perfect metaphor."
7. [17] - personal attacks and profanity directed against another contributer.
8. [18] - addition of links to off-site "sources" criticizing the LVMI that he himself authored (located here [19]). Cberlet did not disclose his own authorship of this link at the time he added it - a conflict of interest and self promotion.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

Additional applicable sections

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Willmcw

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

1. [20] - User:Nskinsella approaches Willmcw on NPOV problems regarding David Duke. User:DickClarkMises concurs and proposes the same on NPOV grounds[21]. Willmcw refuses, feigns seriousness in adding Duke on the basis that he's "better known than" other more pertinent sources being used. Also generally disruptive in response - Willmcw's comments indicate he added Duke for reasons that were not constructive, to wit: another source already in the article allegedly makes it that "any general criticism" including Duke "seems appropriate." WP:POINT disruption.[22]
2. [23] - User:Rangerdude directs Willmcw to Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy in response to Willmcw's personal attack on Nskinsella's employment and occupation. States "For the sake of civility and with respect to wikipedia's editing guidelines, I would urge the editor in violation to refrain from such personal attacks upon the person of another editor be they direct or by implication. Thank you." No response given by Willmcw
3. [24] - User:DH003i complains of disruptive and POV pushing behavior by some editors "who have been actively "working" to make this article mis-representative and of poor quality" and stating their "actions speak for themselves." This appears to be intended as a You know who you are so knock it off type warning to disruptive editing practices in general as DHoo3i did not name specific names it applied to. Willmcw reacts with hostility, accuses DH003i of making a "personal attack."[25]
4. [26] - User:Rangerdude responds to Willmcw's allegation against DH003i, states specific objections to Willmcw's disruptive edits (i.e. Duke) and politely requests that he cease and desist: "Myself and many others have suggested this to you in calm and reasonable terms many times with little result, hence the problem and recurring discussions of it. Given these many notes, I trust that you will conduct yourself more responsibly in the future." In response Willmcw ignores complaints about his editing practices, accuses Rangerdude of personal attacks as well and directs that the discussion be removed to his talk page.[27]
5. [28] - User:Rangerdude quotes and links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources passage against the use of partisan sources as a reminder to all editors and in reference to violations of it by Willmcw. Willmcw rudely responds, posts insinuations about rangerdude and mocks the quoting of this provision, ignores provision about use of partisan sources.[29]
6. Attempts by User:Rangerdude to communicate with Willmcw above also prompt Willmcw to post a message to Rangerdude's talk page making more allegations that the requests of him are personal attacks. [30] Rangerdude replies on Willmcw's talk page to address this allegation [31]. Rangerdude responds that Willmcw has been ignoring "all attempts to calmly and rationally inform you of the problems many of your edits there are producing in light of Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines" and asks of Willmcw "Please do not mischaracterize these critiques of your edits as "personal attacks" and please cease and desist in your misrepresentation of myself and the other editors who have corrected you for your edits in order to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would also appreciate it if you would abstain from making these false insinuations and allegations on both the article talk page and my personal talk page."

Cberlet

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

1. [32] - Detailed description of NPOV and other problems with his edits followed by a polite request to work for consensus first on the talk page and to fix the NPOV problems - "Upon consideration of the above and review of the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he or any other user is invited to propose the addition of materials here on the talk page." Cberlet rebuffed and ignored this request here [33] with a rude 4-word response "Reverted. This is absurd."
2. [34] - Attempt #2. Politely responded to Cberlet that "there's no need for hostility or rudeness" and politely directed him to WP:NPOV policy. Closed with polite 2nd invitation to discuss matter on talk page - "I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated. Thanks." Cberlet refused and attacked with allegation of "censorship"[35]
3. [36] - Attempt #3. Responded to "censorship" allegation and attack by politely directing Cberlet to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Offered a third opportunity to discuss the matter, but this time with a warning that continued hostility would necessitate seeking dispute resolution: "I am patient enough to permit you another opportunity to do this, but in light of the hostility you have displayed despite these multiple attempts, I am prepared to pursue dispute resolution against you in short order if the hostility persists. Thanks." Refused again by denying the problems and making an inconsequential change.
4. [37] - Attempt #4 - again politely requested a talk page discussion: "please propose your desired additions here and I will be happy to detail what I still find objectionable as well as propose collaborative revisions of it in a manner that is more likely to reach consensus among the half dozen or so editors who are actively involved in developing this article at the very moment. Thanks." Cberlet rudely refused, made personal and bad faith allegations, said efforts on the talk page were "not worth a damn" and said to go ahead with dispute resolution as mentioned.[38]
5. [39]] - User:Nskinsella responds to Cberlet that not "everyone here is working to make the article better." Expresses concern for non-neutral edits biased against LVMI by certain editors.
6. [40] - User:Dh003i addresses Cberlet about disruptive editing, NPOV problems in his edits, lack of seriousness, and false allegations of "censorship" by Cberlet. Cberlet's response is dismissive.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

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

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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

Response

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

Response by Cberlet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   You have this issue somewhat upside down, Rangerdude. The reason I'm supportive of Will and Chip is that they're both very good editors. I trust their judgment on issues. I've learned from watching them both edit. I've seen rancorous talk pages be calmed down by them. I've watched them both go off in search of reputable sources that others can't be bothered to look for, or haven't been able to find. I've seen them go to great lengths to track down obscure bits of information and verify it. Those are good reasons for supporting editors, and they are reasons, not bias. Anyway, I'm not sure you should be commenting like this on people's endorsements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Good work by Cberlet and Willmcw in trying to NPOV articles which were being distorted by people too close to the subject to be objective. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
11. Bletch 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
12. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
14. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Response by Others

Response by Nskinsella

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by JamesMLane

I participated in the discussion in response to an earlier RfC concerning article content, so I'm not exactly an "outside" view, though I made only minor edits to the article itself. This article about a libertarian think tank has been edited by several (pro-)libertarian users; in fact, one of those certifying this dispute, User:DickClarkMises, discloses on his user page that he is employed by the Institute. Not surprisingly, the article has seen some POV-inspired battles. Neither side has a spotless record, but the editors who are positively disposed toward the Institute have generally gone much further in pressing their own opinions despite Wikipedia policies. For example, it's not proper to censor notable criticisms of the Institute just because some pro-libertarian editors disagree with the criticisms, deride those criticisms as "nutty", and contrast them with "[s]erious criticism". Fundamentally, there's nothing here except a fairly typical situation in which opinionated editors (including yours truly) find the other side's NPOV violations easier to spot than their own. I find it striking that Rangerdude is complaining about the tone of the discussion, given that he's attacked Willmcw for "disruptive stunts he's pulling" ([41]) and has generally been at least as abrasive as anyone else in the discussion. JamesMLane 01:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Response by Rangerdude

FuelWagon's view of the controversy as expressed here appears to be extremely one-sided, as it completely neglects multiple attempts by Willmcw and Cberlet to add several paragraphs of material favorable to the SPLC's POV. It is troubling and indicative of personal inconsistency that FuelWagon would assert the presence of a "conflict of interest" against two editors who voluntarily and openly disclosed their affiliations with LVMI while simultaneously neglecting the fact that another editor taking the opposite view, which he defends, has actually published partisan political attacks on the LVMI [42] and attempted to insert links to his very own material into the LVMI article for the purpose of criticizing LVMI [43] while being less than forthright about his authorship. To my knowledge, neither User:Nskinsella nor User:DickClarkMises has attempted to insert off-site material from the LVMI that he personally authored into this article. User:Cberlet on the other hand has linked to materials that he personally authored for and published with the Southern Poverty Law Center [44][45] and furthermore he did not disclose at the time of the addition that the source he cited was his own.

Just as troubling is the fact that this contributer has made a not-so-subtle insinuation against me personally, alleging a personal affiliation with the LVMI or, at least, uncertainty that suggests a personal affiliation. I have openly noted many times here and elsewhere that I have absolutely no connections to the LVMI, my only thing in common with them being that we share a libertarian outlook on some political issues. To make such an insinuation in spite of this disclosure plainly violates Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Just as revolting is the fact that this same editor has accused me of having a "conflict of interest" for simply expressing a viewpoint of the LVMI that isn't consumed with bashing them. Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting people from editing articles simply because they are libertarians, and the fact that another editor would claim this to constitute a "conflict of interest" (and all the while ignoring the vocal partisanship of two editors who hail from the political left) smacks of viewpoint discrimination.

A simple review of the diffs cited also plainly reveals that FuelWagon has misrepresented many of my edits there. He accuses me of deleting "the vast majority of the criticism section" added by Cberlet and purports that the objections I stated in the edit summary (which also clearly and repeatedly directed editors to the talk page for more details about the problems and reasons for this edit [46]) did not apply. In fact, I had described the problems with this section (which was added moments before by Cberlet and cited off site articles that he himself had authored) in a detailed multi-paragraph 4 point description containing multiple references to the Wikipedia policies it violated.[47] As may be also seen in this talk page posting, I politely approached Cberlet on this subject and asked him to bring his edits into compliance with policies there before restoring them. Cberlet reacted to this with great personal hostility and with a demonstrated unwillingness to cooperate with these polite requests, as is documented at the beginning of this RfC. Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistently-applied "conflict of interest" allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accuracy of FuelWagon's take on this matter.

Users who endorse this sign here

1. Rangerdude 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Wyss 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (I don't see much effort at conciliation and consensus towards peaceful encyclopedia writing here on the part of FuelWagon, rather lots of confrontation and attempts at intimidation, while Rangerdude seems to at least be making progress at approaching the problem through WP-wide editing techniques and policy)

Response by FuelWagon

Out of curiosity, this section is titled "response" and the instructions say

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

It seems that Rangerdude and others who are endorsing this RFC shouldn't be putting posts in the response section of the RFC as well. It seems to be little more than a misuse of the RFC in an attempt to continually widen the RFC to include outside commenters that they disagree with. FuelWagon 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside views

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

View by Bishonen

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

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

1. Bishonen | talk 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Yet another misuse of the RfC process against two very good editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
3. --Viajero | Talk 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Bletch 01:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Ruy Lopez 04:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 06:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
7. El_C 06:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Rhobite 06:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
10. JimWae 17:51, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
11. Based on evidence, accusations are groundless. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

View by JimWae

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

View by Sam Spade

Evidence of Disputed Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

View by Wyss

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

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

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

View by Robert McClenon

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

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

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

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

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

View by FuelWagon

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

DickClarkMises says on his user page that he is employed at the Mises institute. [48]

user Nskinsella says on his user page that he is an adjunct scholar of the Mises institute. [49]

Whether or not Rangerdude is employed by the Mises Institute is unclear, however his opinion regarding the institute is fairly clear when he made the edit[50] below. Rangerdude added the piece that is italicized:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised Point of View by McClenon

I have reviewed this controversy in much more detail now. I originally said that there was two issues, one of article content, and one of user conduct. I still agree. I thought at the time that Rangerdude had valid issues about article content. I thought at the time that any complaint about user conduct was at best marginal.

As to article content, the article has been very well revised. The POV of the Southern Poverty Law Center is now presented as POV, and its relevance is clear. I have no major issues with the content of the article. I think that Cberlet and Willmcw have done a commendable job of revising the article while they were being questionably accused of misconduct.

As to user conduct, I now do see a user conduct issue. It is by Rangerdude. This is an RfC that has gotten out of control. There are very precise guidelines for how an RfC on user conduct should be presented. Rangerdude is inserting his own commentary into this RfC in an improper way (unless I am mistaken).

I originally thought that this was an issue between two organizations that dislike each other. It is. It is also a resulting dispute between adherents of these organizations, some of whom are being civil, some of whom are not.

Rangerdude has made some very strong demands. He has demanded that various editors recuse themselves from this commentary due to friendship with or agreement with other parties. This is not a Request for Arbitration or a Request for Mediation. He is not entitled to exclude Wikipedians who agree with the other editors. If he thinks that he is entitled to that, while he can have Wikipedians who agree with him endorse this RfC, then either he is being immature or he is being unreasonable.

I think that Cberlet and User:Willmcw have shown restraint and civility. I do not think that Rangerdude has done that.

I do see civility issues. I do not intend to write up an RfC against Rangerdude. I have enough existing disputes. I will sign an RfC against Rangerdude, as an involved party.

I suggest that the originator of this RfC simply delete it from the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page as overtaken by events. If he chooses to continue with it, he should refrain from posting responses to outside opinions directly on the RfC.

Users who endorse this sign here

1. Robert McClenon 02:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Wyss 02:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (Rangerdude, I strongly urge you to call off this RfC and try letting the people it has attracted assist in repairing and building this article by consensus)
3. El_C 02:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
5. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
6. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
7. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Announcements

Announcements pertaining to the conclusion of the RfC

Response to Robert McClenon and issues of closing the RFC

Robert McClenon. Thank you again for your input, however I believe that you have severely mistaken some of my positions and actions here as several are misrepresented above. If you will take a moment to review my requests regarding the recusal of certain editors, you will find that I explicitly stated that it would apply only to those editors' involvement in the event mediation or arbitration is necessary. Nowhere did I "demand" that they "recuse themselves from this commentary," nor have I ever attempted to exclude comments. If you believe otherwise I invite you to show me, though I assure you that was not my intent. A simple review of my comments sufficiently demonstrates that I did not make the "demands" that you have falsely attributed to me:

• "Given that a situation in which personal allegiances have exhibited themselves during the dispute resolution has emerged and given the possibility that this particular dispute may require future actions under the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, among them mediation and, if necessary, arbitration or some further intervention, I have become increasingly concerned that the result will be to prolong the dispute itself and inhibit the reaching of a solution that is agreeable to all sides."
• "Should this indeed become the situation and should this dispute necessitate further procedures such as mediation and/or arbitration, I must request that any contributer with strong personal and/or political allegiances to either User:Willmcw, User:Cberlet or both recuse him or herself from any administrative, mediator, arbitrator, or other related third party role in subsequent steps of this dispute resolution" [51]

Furthermore, I stated in this post that "participation of all editors is welcome on an RfC" indicating that this request for recusal was NOT intended to apply to the said persons' participation at the RfC. Given this, it appears that the position you attribute to me misrepresents my actual stated position on the subject. I do not believe you did so intentionally, and again I apologize if I was not clear enough, however I must also request that you either retract or remove the said allegation against me as it is not representative of a position I took.

As to comments on this RfC, the overwhelming majority of those I have authored are located on the article's discussion page. Far from being inappropriate, this is the explicitly designated area for commentary of exactly this type. The lone exception was posted above as a counterviewpoint to FuelWagon who personally attacked both myself and others, and was posted strictly in self defense. As the course of that conversation devolved into an exchange I also relocated it in its entirity to the discussion page where it may be found presently.

Furthermore, if you will review the recent history of the LVMI article located at [52] you will find that users Willmcw and Cberlet have a combined total of only two edits in the last three days, one of them minor and neither substantially altering or advancing the article. I do not see how this could be called "a commendable job of revising the article," as neither has contributed much of anything in revisions since the RfC began. In reality, the majority of the work to that article between then and now has been done by Wyss, JamesMLane, and myself. On the issue of civility, I must respond that I have consistently employed a reasonable and courteous tone in addressing other editors to the extent that patience permits. Only in cases where I have been personally attacked or approached with plainly disingenuine intent have I been anything less than polite, and even then I do not believe myself to have breached civility.

I do agree that the content of the article has greatly improved since the RfC largely as a result of the new editors it attracted. That said, I am content to withdraw the RfC within 24 hours of this posting for the reason of mootness in light of subsequent revisions, pending that the new revisions are allowed to remain and attempts to restore the original problematic edits do not resume. Thank you again for your consideration and assistance in this matter. Rangerdude 05:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The remark re Willmcw and Cberlet, "a commendable job of revising the article," raised my eyebrows too. However it's about the only remark in Robert McClenon's comment I have any meaningful disagreement with and I do commend Willmcw and Cberlet for their calm and measured participation in this RfC since while they plainly do have strong PoVs on this topic, they've shown deliberate willingness to ultimately cooperate with Wikipedia procedures and consensus. Wyss 16:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In further retrospect, it does appear that I gave credit to Willmcw and Cberlet for revising the article that should have been given to JamesMLane. Robert McClenon 17:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see it go, but the praise belongs to JamesMLane. I have supported his edits on the page.--Cberlet 17:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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