User talk:Rangerdude

Republic of Texas

Hello. I think adding a sidebar to Republic of Texas was a very good thing. Howver, I removed the map of Texas as U.S. state, since the borders of the present day had nothing to do with the borders of the Republic, which as you know were larger. The other map in the article (which I created) are the historical boundaries (showing the difference between what was claimed by the RoT and was disputed by Mexico during that time). -- Decumanus 07:09, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

Your points on the talk page sound pretty good to me, but why not post them and then make the corrections yourself? Best way to ensure it gets done... Kaisershatner 23:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jim Robinson/Free Republic

hey,

I noticed you've been expanding the Jim Robinson page. There is currently a minor dispute over whether the guy deserves his own page, or whether the infomation should go on the Free Republic page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please comment on the Talk:Free Republic page. Thanks! --Jonathan Christensen 07:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only apparent participant in that "dispute," JC, seems to be you. The majority of others who have weighed in on the Jim Robinson talk page have favored keeping it separate, but rather than engage in a civilized, mature discussion there you have opted to ignore the comments there, focus on your personal disputes with another user, and tag the article for a VfD dispute when in fact doing so was inappropriate per wikipedia VfD policy. You need to grow up and learn how to work with other people before undertaking edits here. Rangerdude 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame that the tides are against you. I agree with your argument Ranger Dude, but at this point, there is no way to turn the votes around on the votes for undeletion page, which is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it merged. It is a waste of time to vote otherwise. I just wanted to say that you aren't alone in your argument. I run into a lot of people that don't make sense, are delete-happy, and merge-happy. Good luck with your situation. I'm sorry tis doesn't seem to be able to be won, but if you think I can help somehow, shout at me on my talk page. Mr d00d! 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I moved your comment to my talk page. Mr d00d! 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A Question

Hi, I was just wondering if you had a Free Republic account. I'd really like to read what you have to say there if you do. You could post it on your user page, reply here, or post it on my talk page. --Halidecyphon 19:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - don't have one. And you can tell that to your buddy User:Jonathan Christensen who tagged you here as well. Rangerdude 21:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged me here? I just happened to watch the debate and took a look at the Free Republic site where there are many passionate people with interesting ideas and I was wondering if I could get some background on yours. FYI, I'm halidecyphon over there. Halidecyphon 13:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure you did. A self-admitted close friend of another user who was engaged in an editing dispute with me and who happens to agree with that other user's position against me just happens to stumble upon my talk page out of curiosity and, in further pursuing that curious drive, finds the need to inquire whether I am a user of Free Republic...presumably so we can all meet up over there and be freeper "friends," right? It's called trolling for information. Rangerdude 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that I am a friend of JCs, and that I found out about you and about Free Republic through the Jim Robinson edit debate (as stated above). I just wanted to learn more about the situation, and hopefully to understand your point of view. Thus my question. I'm very sorry if I've violated your talk space. Feel free to delete this discussion if you're so inclined. Halidecyphon 15:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see this: [1] a discussion about reducing the length of Slrubenstein's block for breaking the 3RR on Jesus.--Silversmith 23:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Good work on the Jesus page. The only way to counter stuffing the ballot box is to be organized in like manner. Keep me in mind Nobs 05:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep it's a wikiclique at work. They're gonna be in for a shock if they think 2 dozen athiests are gonna rewrite 2000 years of human experience. Nobs 05:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I don't like the fact that you called one vote "ballot box stuffing", or that you claim I "expressed my surprise that the tide of the vote had turned", or any of the many other false claims you have made. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fib, distort, and backtrack all you want but your ballot recruitment record speaks for itself, Jayjg. That's the great thing about wikipedia - it keeps a record of EVERYTHING including the evidence of your act found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Rangerdude 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your involvement with the AD/BC dispute and want to tell you that you're absolutely right on this one. I won't get involved myself, having my hands full of other flaming stuff, but just one additional information on a similar thing in Germany: The traditional dating is "vor Christus (v. Chr.) " and "nach Christus (n. Chr.)", meaning "before" and "after Christ" (AD is used as a very archaic form), but of course after 1949 that wasn't well thought of in Eastern Germany, so they invented "vor unserer Zeitrechnung (v.u.Z.)" and "nach unserer Zeitrechnung", meaning "before" and "after our time reckoning". By that you can immediately tell whether a book comes from the East. I guess BCE/CE also stems from the same "attitude" (=POV), also there was no central comitee in the US or the UK. Regards, Str1977 15:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

Katefan indicated she'd be willing to discuss the issues you mentioned once mediation was established. Would you be willing to accept mediation, so we can start to look at the real issues in the article and attempt to resolve them? There's obviously been much going on between you and I think a neutral 3rd party would help you guys (or girls) in reaching an agreement. -- Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

Would you object to this mediation to be done public on a subpage of Talk:Houston Chronicle? First of all, I'd like both of you to promise the follow these rules.

1. You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation.
2. No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
3. Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
4. Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review.
5. If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Please respond to let me know if you agree to follow these rules and whether you object to public mediation. -- Mgm|^(talk) 18:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• "I would prefer that it focus primarily upon the differences between myself and Katefan0 regarding the section in question."
  

Yes, I was planning on giving those editors a seperate section to comment in. - Mgm|^(talk) 06:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I've started a page for the mediation on Talk:Houston Chronicle/Mediation. Note that I've changed the first rule of the mediation (on editing), to accomodate your complaint on my talk page. Please provide a detailed account of your views on the article and which sections or sentences you consider disputed and provide alternatives you think are better. Wherever possible, please provide sources and diff edits to support your view. If you expressed your views elsewhere, please copy them, rather than providing links. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: perhaps you may wanna call the attention to the mediator that the tag team technique in mediation including a disinterested party may lack good faith, and is just an attempt to wear you down. It is a distraction from the issues under consideration and has no real basis pertaining to this article. Good luck. Nobs01 01:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No question of a pattern. Please note the administrator in question I do not beleive is an American; I beleive he resides in New Zealand. His politics are ideologically motivated and his understanding of American society, politics, and history is second hand. He appears very much affected by the export of John Dewey's ideas on public education, but has never had to deal with the diversity in everyday life of American thought and experience. Hence, he can come across as ideolistic and intollerent. Just my own dime store diagnosis. Keep me posted. Nobs01 05:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments

Please stop using the term "stalker" to refer to my efforts in this project. Your use of the term has the appearance of a personal attack. Thank you. -Willmcw 08:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Then please stop engaging in behavior that strongly resembles wiki-stalking. Following other editors around wikipedia to intentionally challenge, disrupt, and deconstruct every edit they make on virtually every article regardless of the content is extremely poor etiquette, especially when most of the said edits are petty changes or challenges made without merit or proper background. You have demonstrably engaged in behavior of this type towards me for a long time and have, of recent, increased its intensity in a manner that is deconstructive and disruptive to the general purpose of wikipedia. An occasional encounter on common topics of interest is one thing, but nobody made you policeman or gave you the right to unilaterally screen and deconstruct the work of all editors you disagree with politically. Rangerdude 09:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no policy against constructive, NPOV edits on Wikipedia. Labelling edits with a term that you apparently believe is a perjorative is a personal attack, regardless of its truth or inaccuracy, and there is a policy against that. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and personal comments in no way help that effort. Thank you, -Willmcw 09:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are, however, extensive policies and guidelines requiring etiquette and civility. Stalking other editors around wikipedia for no other purpose than to deconstruct, disrupt, annoy, and unnecessarily complicate valid and sound additions to the articles on this forum expresses neither, thus I will continue to object to your behavior and call it exactly what it is so long as you persist in your etiquette violations. I will also note that internet stalking is generally considered a form of trolling. It thus pertinent information to any arbitration proceeding involving harassment behavior that is deconstructive to wikipedia & precedents abound establishing this. Rangerdude 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: yes I am familiar with the administrator in question. Actually I may owe him a debt of gratitude since after my blog site & e-mail account were hacked I decided to just do all my work in the wiki community. Given his analytical skills he should perhaps stick with hacking since thats seems to be where his real talents lie (incidentlaly, my original User:Nobs password was stolen about a week ago when I was still learning Firefox). And as to the rhetorical arts, the subjects parsing of facts really aren't worthy of the Flat Earth Society.Nobs01 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me amend the above "sometimes aren't worthy of the Flat Earth Society". Nobs01 21:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Since you have been repeatedly using personal attacks I have filed an RrC to gain other user input about that conduct. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude. I have nothing personal against you and don't understand why you choose to make personal comments and why you refuse to participate in mediation with me. Regretfully, -Willmcw 04:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that by vocally stating my objections to your behavior of following me around the forum with overly harassing and deconstructive edits to my work, or wiki-stalking as I have described it, somehow constitutes a "personal attack" is a patent falsehood, Will. I have REPEATEDLY voiced my objection to your behavior and the general lack of etiquette it entails to no avail, thus directly confronting you on it with multiple requests not to wiki-stalk me was both accurate and necessary. To assert that I refuse to participate in mediation with you is another falsehood as well. I indicated that I did not desire for you to participate in the closed mediation between myself and katefan for reason of your pattern of disruptive and harassing behavior towards me. I did not state that you couldn't participate in the open mediation found on the second half of the page, nor have I ever attempted to prevent you from posting there. Given our differences, I think it is best that we should seek to avoid each other on wikipedia wherever possible and in all cases of articles except those where we both have an immediate and strong editing interest. I would hope that you would feel the same way, yet I also know that you have intentionally sought me out over the course of several months in virtually every corner of wikipedia, hence the rub. Sadly it seems to have come to seeking outside intervention. Since at this point, quite frankly, I want nothing more to do with you I am content to seek out the aforementioned solution. Whether you will or whether you'll continue more of the same however remains in doubt. Rangerdude 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I welcome mediation with you. Thanks for being open to the prospect. I'd be happy to withdraw my RfC if we can engage in mediation instead. My only complaint is with your personal comments. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated, you are free to participate in the designated section of the mediation page (though not the closed one). If you do so I will consider your comments as any other. I will further note that standing issues remain as to your editing practices though, and I anticipate that you will find a means of addressing those practices that I have stated to be objectionable, of poor etiquette, and generally deconstructive to wikipedia. Asserting an objection with your editing practices is a criticism, and as I have emphatically stated it is a criticism I sincerely make and would like to see you resolve. That does not mean it's a personal attack though. Rangerdude 09:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: I'm still a relative newbie and learning the process, so I may need your assitance in following the process. Please keep me apprised. Thanx. Nobs01 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there I'm having a terrible time with one Willmcw and I don't know how to end it, as good of an editor he may be, he's causing me a lot of headaches and harrassing me. Do you know who I could contact to mediate some sorto f truce between him, so he will leave me alone and let me to edit and copy edit, which I think is part of the process here? thanks SteveSteve espinola 01:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Query

Rangerdude, did you make this edit [2] or is someone playing games? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's addressed to you, not signed by you. My apologies. I can guess who's behind it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute

I wish you would re-consider some of your issues with Willmcw. He's a good editor who sticks closely to policy, and it's beginning to look as though you're following him around the board trying to make trouble for him, which is only succeeding in making you look bad; for example, with your support today of Poetatoe, who was clearly a troublemaker and a sockpuppet. Perhaps if you were to give yourself a break from interacting with him, you might see things differently in a week or so. Situations have a tendency to look distorted to us when we're in the thick of them, as I know from my own experience. I hope you'll give that some consideration. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Please see my response here.[3] Far from "following" willmcw around the board, this latest dispute arose after he followed me (yet again!) to another article I was editing this morning. Nothing would please me more than if I could go a day at wikipedia without willmcw "coincidentally" showing up at the same article that I'm working on only moments after I've made an edit. The unfortunate reality, however, is that willmcw likes to follow me through my editor contributions page and has been doing so for several months.[4] Thus whenever I make an edit on just about any topic, be it history, politics, or even an obscure scientific theory of astronomy, willmcw magically appears to instigate a content dispute. Rangerdude 06:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the example you gave at Eric Foner: you didn't originally write the disputed passage, but you restored it here [5] and you edited it here [6], so you're clearly defending it. Will disputes it because it's unsourced and the critics are not named, which they ought to be according to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Therefore, he asked you for a source on the talk page, and you ought to supply one if you want the passage to stay (or anyone else who wants it to stay ought to supply one), but it's up to the editor defending the edit to find the source, not up to the editor who's challenging it. Will has this article on his watchlist, and checks when someone's made an edit, which is why watchlists exist. Also, I'd say that if you genuinely wanted to avoid interacting with him, then you wouldn't edit a passage in an article that has already been the subject of a query by him. If you want to avoid him for a week or so, then don't edit articles you've already had a dispute with him over. A short break from the tension will likely help you to see things differently, and then you can proceed more calmly with mediation; or better still, you may decide you don't need it after all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Since we're looking back to February, Slim, to justify edit disputes in June why don't you take a look at WHY willmcw has Eric Foner on his watchlist? The answer, of course, is he followed me there on February 15th [7] after digging for articles I had edited through my editor contributions page. This, of course, was the same week he followed me to about a dozen different articles all over wikipedia for the explicit purpose of instigating disputes on each, many of them for deconstructive and bad faith reasons.[8] I defended the original wording for the reason that I defend most original wordings - if material is factually valid but said to be in need of a source, the responsible editor making that charge will first seek out a source before hitting the delete button. In all of my encounters with him, Willmcw seldom if ever adds any new material to any of the articles i've seen him on. Instead he seeks out reasons to justify deletions - deletions that normally coincide with political beliefs, and a great many of them ones made without any real cause or even a true want of sources. Furthermore, expecting me to avoid edits to every article where Willmcw has been involved is an unreasonable demand given that, per his habit of following me around wikipedia, he has happened to involve himself in virtually every article where I've made a significant contribution and almost all of the articles that I have an interest in developing. Given his pattern of behavior, avoiding him by the means you suggest would effectively mean avoiding wikipedia. There's only one way to end the tension and that is for him to quit stalking my edits. But that is a choice only he can make. Rangerdude 06:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say you "defended the original wording for the reason that [you] defend most original wordings", namely that if the material is correct, but needs a source, the editor wanting to delete it should find a source. But you have that exactly the wrong way round: it's the editor defending the material who has to find the source. And how do you know whether something's factually correct if you don't have a source? If Foner has been accused of being un-American, there must be a reputable source for that somewhere, and if none can be produced, it has to be deleted. We're not allowed to insert our own opinions, or defend another editor's personal views. Will is acting in accordance with our policies, as he always does in my experience. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Much to the contrary, SlimVirgin. A critique of Foner's well known liberal politics very reasonably falls under Wikipedia:Common_knowledge which does indeed _encourage_ the finding of sources yet explicitly states "However, there are some claims that many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact, without citing any outside sources." IOW, sometimes it is indeed okay to say "the sky is blue" without linking to a page stating the sky is blue. The article further continues in asserting what types of common knowledge fall outside of this category, specifically items lacking consensus and falling under specific criteria. The remainder are left to the "forces of inertia, consensus, and moral suasion." Willmcw never contested that any such category applied. He did not seek consensus or seek to demonstrate the lack thereof. Nor did he even attempt to justify his deletion on any other principle than his belief of it to be unsourced. Rangerdude 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I'm not going to answer every one of your many accusations. But with the Eric Foner article, like most of these articles, I went there because it was under discussion elsewhere, or because of an eidt that you or others made. In this instance, we were editing James M. McPherson, which contained a criticism of Foner. (Which you again attributed to "Common knowledge"). That includes this edit, where you inaccurately accuse me of adding some text about Foner: "What on earth are you ranting at me for, Jim? Your buddy Willmcw's the one who added that line! I have no problem with changing it back though" [9]. It was natural that I would go look at Eric Foner as a result. Please be more careful in your accusations. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try Will, except that (1) you did indeed add that line [10], thus making my comment accurate, and (2) far from simply travelling between similar articles under immediate discussion on pages of a mutual editing interest, you spent that same week conciously following me to the far reaches of wikipedia for entirely unrelated articles on astronomy [11], obscure trade legislation [12], political thinktanks [13], historians [14], and history terminology [15], among other things. By the time you arrived at Eric Foner, you were in full fledged wiki-stalker mode and indisputably operating off of my editor contributions page. Rangerdude 06:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the diff you provided you'll see that I edited the line about Foner in the McPherson article rather than adding it wholesale. In any case, it was our editing of that line which led me to Foner, not an Ahab-like obsession with you. Chill out. -Willmcw 06:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

And if you look at JimWae's comment, you will see that it is directed at the line you edited in the version you changed it to, just as I indicated when I noted that I would change it back to the previous version. As to an "Ahab-like obsession," your behavior as documented above speaks for itself. Jumping from McPherson to astronomy to trade law to political think tanks to historical terminology, all of which I happened to be editing just before you showed up on each, is more than coincidence and serves as conclusive evidence that you have been following me through my editor contribution page. Rangerdude 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's 'cause you edit interesting articles. ;) -Willmcw 07:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Are you still interested in mediation? Andre (talk) 20:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, could you please respond to User:Andrevan so that we can start mediation? Thanks, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 01:35 (UTC)

writing of history on Wikipedia

Hello,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz at gmu dot edu

Willmwc nomination

Rangerdude: This is a political decision. You're not gonna stop his re-election. You may even isolate yourself. This could be an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and show good faith. Ultimately, he will be beholden to his supporters who elected him.Nobs01 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All true & valid; however one should consider the bloc arrayed in support. Senator Bill Bradley voted against Alan Greenspan for Federal Reserve Chairman in 1986, only to give evidence of his "mindless partisanship" when he ran for President in 2000 and everyone credited Greenspan (not Clinton) with the ongoing recovery. Nobs01 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin

RD: If you have a moment I hope you would seriously consider this nomination Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feco. Thanks. Nobs01 30 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm ready and willing to mediate, so let me know when you'd like to get started. Andre (talk) July 2, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

We don't need to wait for mediation to start resolving this issue. Volunteer mediationn must be the least pleasant job in Wikipedia. I don't think we've given sufficient effort to working this out between ourselves.

Wikipedia is not a good place to edit for one who does not want to have others looking over their shoulder. I freely admit that I look over your shoulder and fix what I think needs fixing. We all look over each other's shoulders' and that is how editing gets done around here. Anyone who does not like having their writing "edited mercilessly" should not submit it. I believe you are saying that I am harassing you, but I think that I have always been polite and correct. Our editing collaboration has ultimately been positive for the encyclopedia. I am glad to be accused of adding content to articles, and I think that is the wonder of Wikipedia. We all add our little bit. I'm also glad to serve as an editor, questioning unnamed critics and excessive attention to vague controversy. If we can keep away from making personal remarks then I think that we can continue to work together productively. I'd be happy to stay on track for mediation, but ultimately we need to work this out between ourselves. Wikilove, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 09:02 (UTC)

There's a difference, will, between simply "looking over one's shoulder" and actively stalking. If you were checking my work on two, three, or four articles of common interest, and myself vice versa, it would be "looking over one's shoulder." Unfortunately your activity extends well beyond the simple checks and balances that entails and includes actively following me around wikipedia to in excess of 50 different articles on topics of all sort and nature. A great many of your attempts to edit my additions are plainly made in bad faith and aimed directly at frustrating, deconstructing, and/or removing them even when they are more than sufficiently sourced per wikipedia guidelines. It is this breach of Wikipedia's good faith assumption that makes stalking problematic, and the hostile environment it produces is why so many editors frown upon the practice. It should also be noted that there is ample precedent on Wikipedia that stalking behavior constitutes "disruptive editing" due to its breach of the good faith assumption including at least one case where an editor was personally blocked by Jimbo Wales for stalking another user with edits that were primarily minor and inconsequential yet exhibited a consistent pattern of specifically following that editor. Per Wales' decision, the stalker "was making a pest of himself by harassing" the other editor. [16] I have addressed these concerns to you directly many times, will. I have explained and documented them in detail, and now I am seeking outside mediation to resolve them. It is unfortunate that we've come this far, but you've been completely unresponsive to my concerns and only intensified your problematic behavior as a response. Thus outside intervention has become the only alternative at this point. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

I'm responding to your concerns by addressing the issue with you here. From the tone of your discussion it seems that you do not assume good faith on my part, either. Do you think that mediation will be able to restore our good faith in each other's efforts? That'd be swell if it could happen. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Alright, how would you guys like to do this? E-mail, IRC...? Andre (talk) July 5, 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's standard practice, but I have no problem with it, if that's what you two would prefer. Andre (talk) July 5, 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble following this conversation. I would prefer to conduct the mediation according to standard practice. Email would be most convenient. Thanks, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:39 (UTC)

I strongly oppose email in this mediation for the reason of privacy, given that the complaint involves stalking. Wikipedia would be the best location to conduct the mediation in these circumstances. Thank you. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Private accounts through free services like Hotmail or Yahoo are easy to arrange. Due to the nature of this dispute we should proceed confidentially with private discussion. That is the usual way of conducting mediation and I think it is necessary in this matter. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. The stalking involved in this dispute, and the aforementioned concerns regarding behavior and name speculation by the other editor, have led me to conclude that a mediation by email is neither viable nor in the interest of my personal privacy and safety. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Your safety?! -Willmcw July 6, 2005 03:04 (UTC)

Email's an excellent way to spread bugs, viruses, and all sorts of other nasty programs, to say nothing of its insecurities. So yes, since this is a stalker case my safety. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I don't care what mechanism we use, but mediation in public is not likely to succeed. Whatever confidential communication technique you prefer is ok. Thanks, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 04:40 (UTC)

I would like for there to be an accessible and permanent record of all proceedings, at least to the parties involved. I am doubtful that the mediation, if done on a technically "public" section of wikipedia, would even attract the attention of any readers beyond the three of us. Thus it would be little different than what could occur privately by email minus the email security threat and aforementioned issues. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

What purpose is served by having a public discussion since it will be limited to the three of us? I think that discussion needs to remain confidential so that we don't have to worry about our comments being used again subsequently. IRC is another option, or Andrevan may be able to suggest something so you won't have to fear me hurting you. -Willmcw

Given comments of that sort, I must question exactly what it is you are intending to say that you fear receiving a public eye. You "hurting" me is not my fear, but you stalking me further and you "hurting" my computer are events I would rather not take the chance of encountering. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

Whatever. Any confidential communications arrangement is fine with me. I see no reason to hold our mediation in public or to keep a permanent record to show to others. The mediation committee has standard methods and we should follow them. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Notes on mediation

It may be worthwhile to mention a few points about mediation mechanisms and philosophy. There are several sound reasons for a confidential mediation process versus a public one listed at Wikipedia:Mediation. Confidential mediation reduces the need to 'keep up appearances'—there's no need to 'play to the audience' or worry about losing face by 'winning' or 'losing'. There's also the benefit that well-meaning but nosy individuals (hello!)–or worse, editors who wish to fuel the conflict–will stumble in and make unhelpful or unwelcome remarks. Remember, it's mediation, not a cage match.

Your mediator will keep a record of the mediation process, and is empowered to break confidentiality if the other party breaks the terms of the mediation. If you don't feel you can trust the mediator to that extent, you should find another one.

As a technical note, the major webmail providers provide protection from nasty things sent by email. As long as you turn off inline images and don't download any attachments, you should be fine. Your mediator might also suggest alternate communication strategies. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Thank you for that note, however my concerns remain. If this dispute did not involve stalking I would be more openly inclined to the type of mediation you describe, however since this case does involve stalking and harassment in which I have been the target, I must insist upon certain reasonable precautions to protect my privacy and security. Even with standard anti-virus safeguards etc. by email, it is inherently open to more sophisticated security problems as well as leaving an email tagline with each message documenting extensive personal information. Since - again - this case involves a stalker, I am simply not willing to take those risks. As to the confidentiality, the problem of outside participation by a "nosy" editor can be easily contained in the mediation page's terms, restricting participation to the two editors and mediator (all other edits to be reverted and removed). Again, given the case's circumstances, having an independently sustained record of the proceedings is also of added importance. I do not share a concern about "winning" or "losing" since this mediation is not about any article content that could be decided one way or another by mediation outcome, but rather the behavior of a specific editor against me, its purpose being to resolve those behavioral issues. Anything that can be said on that subject may be done openly. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Comment from a Mediator

Since you have refused Mediation, there is only one choice left to make. Either one of you must be blocked for personal attacks now, or perhaps the matter should go to arbitration. Uncle Ed, co-chair, the Mediation Committee. Uncle Ed 02:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's refused mediation, Ed. I simply refuse any mediation channel that would unduly inhibit my privacy as an editor to another individual in a case where the subject of the mediation itself is a lengthy allegation of stalking behavior by that individual against myself. So long as mediation can be conducted in a manner that satisfies this concern, I'm open to it. As to "gaming the system," wikipedia has extensive precedents indicating that stalking behavior is inherently disruptive. I have no problem with others making edits to my work, but I do have a problem when another editor singles me out for harassment and deconstructs my work on a repeatedly groundless basis due to his personal political beliefs and fixations. Rangerdude 05:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude said repeatedly he is amenable to mediation, but not by email, and he would prefer it on a Wiki page. Willmcw apparently is unwilling to do it this way. Stephan Kinsella 19:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Standard policy is for mediation between individuals to be private and confidential. I don't care how we do it as long as we follow the standard procedures. -Willmcw 21:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

As I have noted many times, this particular mediation has many extraordinary circumstances surrounding it especially since it involves a stalker case. As such, I am only agreeable to mediums that completely protect my privacy. Of the means that have been suggested, conducting it through wikipedia in some form or another is the most likely to do this IMHO. Rangerdude 00:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, as a noted author (thanks) of a legal treatise on arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, I hereby deem, decide and irrevocably decree that Rangerdude is correct. See what a good decisionmaker I am? My rate is $580/hour. Okay? :) Stephan Kinsella 05:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As long as it's private and confidential, that's fine. -Willmcw 00:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me it ought to be on a public Wiki page. I hereby decree this, as a noted author (thanks Willmcw, for this status) of a legal treatise on arbitration, mediation, and conciliation. Okay? :) Stephan Kinsella 18:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Negative personal comments

Please stop making negative personal comments about me on article talk pages. If you have a specific comment about a specific edit, then that's fine. But if you want to editorialize on my behavior I'm asking you to please move that to the mediation process. Thank you. -Willmcw 08:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have made no negative personal comment about you on talk pages beyond your disruptive editing and violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policies on the articles where it has occurred. Furthermore, in each case I have attempted to calmly ask you to bring your edits into compliance with the policies you violate, only to be rebuffed followed by recurring violations of the very same. As such, my comments are specific and germane to the individual cases of those articles and accordingly belong exactly where I placed them. If you do not like that, once again the easiest way to avoid it is to bring your edits into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rangerdude 17:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on my talk page, thanks. -Willmcw 21:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, want me to mediate? Stephan Kinsella 18:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in becoming a mediator then you should contact the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]. -Willmcw 21:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I like the if-then hypothetical nature of your normative assertion--IF I want X, THEN I "should" do something. Just perfect. The content, the minor premise, ah, there's the rub, mercutio. There's the rub. :) Wikilove. Stephan Kinsella 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

Got a favor to ask, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff. nobs 02:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

LvMI

IMHO the RfC is plainly unfolding along political/economic PoVs, not the behavior of the individuals or WP policy as what articles do and how they're are built. Wyss 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Calling that org neo-confederate is like calling it Nazi. If they want to use that cite, let 'em, then succinctly illustrate it's not only shrill invective, but easily deflated polemics (since it's historically inaccurate). The other side may never be convinced but never mind, readers looking for a neutral perspective will quickly see the point and discard the cite as meaningless, even if they have other problems with the libertarian economics. Wyss 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, PS: IMHO you're going to be overwhelmed in this RfC if you go on accusing them of misconduct (or any other "failings"). The only way to pull the article back into encyclopedic shape is to resolutely insist that criticisms be put in a separate section which, when it turns out to be as long as the rest of the article, will look ridiculous and likely be pared down by "them" to make it more lean and mean. Wyss 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now that I know this article rather intimately, feel free to tell me what bugs you about it or whatever. I'll do everything I can to help fix it in a way that works for everyone. Wyss 20:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent 3RR warning by FuelWagon

3RR warning

consider this your 3RR warning regarding the RFC on Cberlet et al. FuelWagon 20:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon - Please do not issue false "warnings" of policy violations that have not occurred. There have only been two reverts at the time you posted your warning, making me well within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy and making you two reverts short of even having a case.

• Rever #1
• Revert #2

As your behavior on the LVMI RfC is continuously disruptive to the ends of resolving the dispute and to my announced decision to withdraw the RfC this evening, your further participation there will be ignored. Rangerdude 20:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a "false warning". I simply want to make sure that you are aware of the 3RR policy. Admins don't always block someone if they haven't been warned and claim they didn't know the rules. Now that it is established that you know the rules, ignorance of the rule is not an defense. FuelWagon 21:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Making a 3RR warning against another user when you are still two reversions short of a 3RR violation is false by definition. Further false allegations by you will be construed as harassment. Rangerdude 21:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Making sure you know the rules is not "false" by any definition. You did 2 quick reverts on material that didn't belong. (and that you moved them to other sections seems to indicate that you agree they didn't belong there in a passive sort of way). And I wanted to warn you about 3RR before the reverts continued. Relating to editors as if you were a prosecuting attorney is not assuming good faith. Whether or not you're a lawyer (or act like one) doesn't matter on wikipedia. What matters is whether you play well with others you disagree with. Try assuming good faith when an editor disagrees with you. FuelWagon 22:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet

RD: Heads up on who you're dealing with [17] (38,000 google hits on Chip Berlet, aka Cberlet) nobs 01:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If you so choose, send me an e-mail address through my talk page. It's your choice. Thanks. nobs 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The box labelled "Christianity" as the root Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism is extremely offensive. I know if the box were to read Judaism, or Islam, as the root of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism it would not be tolerated. What is the applicable Wikipedia policy that grants an exemption to open displays of anti-Christian bigotry? Thanks. nobs 15:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Request

See: Requests_for_mediation#Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs - Request for mediation. --Cberlet 20:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Thanks for the talk page about Will. I'm trying to make that a stronger article, as I'm also trying to wiki articles in the backlog. I'll get better at the process, with the help form the likes of you!!! Steve espinola 04:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Steve espinola

Stalking and POV posses

I read the material on your user page, and I couldn't agree more. --HK 22:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Willmcw

Thanks for the info, I really hope not to have to go as far as all of that, but it is good to know there is some bit of strategy I can use to end this plague of Willmcw. Steve espinola 03:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Sorry I've been lax in responding to you guys. Are you ready to start mediation? Andre (talk) 20:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Permission?

I found Wikipedia:Stalking and added your material to this page. I hope it was okay with you. Please feel free to add to it and create Wikipedia:Cliques, too. ChoobWriter 15:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiCliques

Thanks for your insightful comments on WikiCliques. Did you coin the term yourself? I'm currently having some problems with a WikiClique over at the Eustace Mullins article. Unfortunately, it seems the only realistic way of dealing with such cliques is perhaps for people to form counter-cliques. What are your thoughts? Cheers. Amalekite 15:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a Yankee, but not the sort you'd think...

Please advise me on how to deal with people who basically demolish New England's true history. I've seen this before, including ideas about the Pilgrims coming first. While many of my relatives have moved to Northern New England and say nothing publicly about the bastardisation of New England, it really does sting that people keep getting the wrong impressions and enforcing them so desperately. For instance, the whole thing with John Kerry was extremely debasing to my self esteem and what was done to New England had broken my heart. For so long as these usurpers rip apart my heritage, I feel queasy about returning home. I could just see it as if the New York Times relocated to Little Rock, promoting their own and condemning the locals as barbarians. I had left New England because nobody does anything to preserve the dignity of our culture anymore, nor do they care about the crime rates in Hartford from illegal Latin Americans who made a grand city become a veritable dumpster for undesireables. I don't want to resign my homeland's fate to foreigners, which is quite different from the most vocal degenerates in the media and political professions. Yes I do like the French, but of the Ancient Regime and this is cultural but not political. How do I protect myself from inconsiderate ignoramouses who want to rub their hatred of the English in my face? Do I have any legal defence against this? I know that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but what do you think I should do in regards to public relations that has me interface personally with others? I'm afraid that nobody cares for the truth anymore and when they complain about religious fundamentalism, all they have is the secular kind to give. Please write back soon. I'm presently locking horns with some arrogant people with no clue on what they are talking about, nor do they know how to interpret the subject in question for what it is. Would you care to help me return the New England article to a state of self-respect and intolerance for anachronistic illusions of Yankee life? I also have tidewater, highland southern, with some midland background. None of my ancestors are from the Midwest or West and I have a serious stake in keeping things orthodox, straight-laced to the dignity of the United States and it's United Kingdom heritage. Please help, I beg of you. Bigelow 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee Rangerdude, your pals are real nice folks. "I have a serious stake in keeping things orthodox, straight-laced to the dignity of the United States". Yeah right. [18] -Willmcw 09:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

And I'll be logging the above comment by Willmcw as yet another bad faith assumption and personal attack on his part. Rangerdude 09:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking

I hereby allege that you have wiki-stalked me by following me to pages and making edits in an attempt to harass me. You have followed me to several user talk pages and posted remarks apparently intended to harass, disrupt, or deconstruct my editing and other work at Wikipedia. Specifically: [19], [20], [21], [22]. This is in addition to countless other occasions in other circumstances, not to mention violations of NPOV, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:POINT, and other policies and guidelines too numerous to list here. Please cease your harassing wikistalking behavior as it upsets me a great deal and prevents me from experiencing wikipeace and wikilove. If you do not, you face stiff penalties. -Willmcw 08:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Disruption and WP:POINT allegations by Willmcw

Willmcw - There are two problems with your "complaint" against me, Will. (1) Per WP:POINT "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." As you anounced your intention to file the above complaint against me for purposes of making a point here in response to the currently pending wiki-stalking complaint I filed against you in June, the disruptive and bad faith nature of your allegation is already documented. (2) Per Wikipedia:Stalking "There may be many other legitimate reasons for following another editor, so it is a good idea to have a justification for such activity." In the cases you allege above, my justification was plainly cited and documented by links to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and the Wikipedia policy page - both of which you were abusing at the time. Also please note that I consider this allegation of yours to be evidence of your continued pattern of personal harassment against me and an attempt to disrupt my editing efforts in the development of the wiki-stalking guideline proposal, as well as that proposal itself. The actions of your buddy User:SlimVirgin conducted in concert with you to promote your disruption[23] and to impede my ability to respond to you by abuse of her administrative powers[24] in page protecting my user page are similarly considered to be a form of personal harassment by the two of you conducted for the same disruptive purposes. These and any other similar disruptions will be recorded and reported accordingly to appropriate Wikipedia authorities as the need arises. Rangerdude 09:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Partly to blame?

Hi. I wonder if I am partly to blame for User:Willmcw's current behavior, that you for some reason find wrong. I am fairly new to wikipedia and yet I have helped out a lot; some ways are flawed but others tend to agree that my work with migrating the cleanup system and the archive maker for the Categories for Delete backlog were all good things, taking hours of work. However, after many days of work migrating teh system it became apparent, upon my checking up on them after I was finished, that a set of usernames — one in particular (one User:Steve espinola) — had been basically vandalizing the new system, causing hundreds of backlogged articles from August 2004 to be delisted by either simply removing the tags of wantonly dirty articles, doing frivolous edits, and on a few occasiosn outright vandalism. In time after time, I found that User:Willmcw had already corrected the vandalism for me, and I was quite thankful as it saved me many hours work.

It soon became apparent to me that this operator was using many other names, most connected with either cleanup vandalism or Biff Rose vandalism, or flaming on three users' talk pages: mine, User:Willmcw, and User:Sojambi_Pinola all in our connection to stopping his/her vandalism.

Over the course of a week-long edit war, I found it *most* confusing that time after time after time user accounts that I saw clearly as sockpuppets of this character (and there were ~8 last time I counted) you would say some derogative things about Willmcw, such as "Ignore this guy, he does this this and this wrong." I believe this may have *significantly* hindered my own vandalism repairing (not to mention the other two) by — pardon the idiom — eboldening the enemy. I know that I at first thought Willmcw might have some serious issues, but after getting through this stuggle w/ him I fear that you might have just rushed to some conclusions. The following needs to be set straight:

1. I probably wikistalked the vandal sockpuppets more than Willmcw; at least as much.
2. I probably used far more harsh words w/ regard to them than Willmcw.
3. There woudln't have been a *need* to wikistalk any one if it were not for the fact that no one can tell when an article has had a cleanup category removed, as had been done.
4. The attacks on our personal pages got egregious after the Biff Rose article as protected which led to very antogonistic statements by all parties (alawys initiated by the vandal) on all of our talk pages.

After the situation was stabilized around the 15th or so, I couldn't believe you were having it out with willmcw. AFAIK he should be treated as some sort of hero, but I figure the only reason he isn't is becuase wiki si *so* easy to vandalise that this level of malcontent occurs regularly. Thus, I guess you should include me in any accusations against Willmcw you have with regards to his actions against the sockpuppets I have dealt with. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 11:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)