Talk:Chuck Munson/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] University

This text appeared and disappeared. So, did he or didn't he attend U of K? Does anyone know? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Information

This article does not "belong" to its subject. If there is incorrect information in it then please let us know the correct information. Most recently user:24.94.181.211, who has previously identified himself as "Chuck Munson",[1], has deleted his birthdate and the name and link to his blog. (usually people are anxious to publicize their blogs). Would user:24.94.181.211 please explain why this informaiton should be removed? Thanks -Willmcw 06:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

An anon just added Munson's place of residence. Knowing that Munson is sensitive to his information being revealed, I checked and found that he has listed his hometown (and mailing address) in his blog. [2] Since it's on his blog there's no harm in listing it here too. -Willmcw 20:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why this information, which is plainly written on Munson's own blog, is irrelevant or improper to include in his biographical entry here? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Where else does an article on a person give their address?--jenlight 20:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a strawman - this article does not include his address. Many biographical articles state where their subjects live or lived, either directly or by implication from their place of employment. Robert Sargent Shriver III, Amy Goodman, Robert Graham (sculptor), Rick Ross, Anwar Robinson, etc. Also, many articles on places mention notables who live there: Knocklyon, Brentwood, Los Angeles, California, etc. There is nothing improper about listing his county of residence, particularly since Chuck freely posts his own, exact, address. -Willmcw 22:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • What difference does it make? His address is not necessary for the article. --jenlight 04:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
His address isn't in the article, just his county of residence. The point of mentioning it here is that the guy has repeatedly posted his own address on his own website, so we are not invading his privacy by listing his general area of residence. More recently he has added a bunch of new material and let the old material remain, so perhaps he doesn't mind so much anymore. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I, like many, haven't the slightest idea who this guy is which is why this article is silly and should be deleted, but, besides that there is no reason an address of residence for any person should be included. What other articles on people have done this? Also, banning the subject of the article is censorship which I'd like to think Wikipedia would condemn. That said, what's most important is that this article is vanity and non-notable. --jenlight 20:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
How is it vanity? He didn't create it. I did. And I agree - specific address should not be listed, especially for someone who has concerns with privacy. --Tothebarricades 23:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Munson also keeps deleting his name from the Infoshop.org article, despite clear evidence that he is in charge of it. Here is a short bio attached to an article he wrote:
  • Chuck Munson is a native Kansas Citian who returned to the city in 2003 after living elsewhere for 20 years. He is an anarchist organizer who is involved with the Crossroads Infoshop and other local projects. He also runs Infoshop.org, a popular independent website for news, opinion and resources. Chuck's blog, Monumental Mistake, can be found at: http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/. [4]
This short article by a third party describes him as the webmaster and editor. [5] I hope that Munson will explain why he wants to erase his name from this enterprise of which he is clearly the principle. -Willmcw 22:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Why is he deleting his name off the infoshop.org page? Anyone who has been there knows he runs it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.205.12.214 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Notable critics

If Anderberg is the most notable critic of Munson then the link to her article should stay, crazy or not. But if there is a more notable critic, we could use that person instead. Can Chuck0 suggest who the most notable critic of Chuck Munson is? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Since when has Kirsten been crazy? I like her work. I haven't read that article though. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.142.228.62 (talk • contribs)
Hey, that was me before I had a user name! I take that back, she is a bit crazy at times (but some of her stuff is good). The Ungovernable Force 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So when is somebody going to remove the link to the libelous criticism of me from Kirsten Anderberg? As I understand it, criticism added to Wikipedia entries has to be sourced to something serious and published. When are rants posted to the blog of a mentally unbalance individual considered legitimate criticism. I've alreayd refuted the lies and slander in her rant, including pointing out that I added her as a paid writer to Infoshop in order to support and promote more female radical writers. Anderberg is a mentally unstable individual. Just read her blog or any of her rants. She lashes out at everybody, including her friends. Chuck0 20:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Anderberg article. She is a perenial internet troll who makes outlandish and factually incorrect claims on the regular. In the Stacks
Why did Munson attempt to remove my note here from the Talk page? I removed an unfair, factually incorrect article as per his request, he seemed to have no problem with its removal, but does not want the mention of why it was removed? Strange. I would appreciate if explinations for editing choices were respected, even if disagreed with. Does Chuck want the Anderberg piece put back up? In the Stacks

[edit] Dispute Over D.C. IMC

10/23/06: Look Chuck, I was at those meetings and was one of many who did the work. "You" did not in fact "write the coop plan" nor were "you" "instrumental" in moving DC Indymedia into Flemming. Taking credit for this work is pretty much a gigantic insult to the people who did the work. You suggested a "coop plan" that people read. You were a member of the Brian McKenzie Infoshop that also moved into Flemming. There were many eye witnesses, and inflating yourself is just making you look stupid.

You did contribute a few articles to DC Indymedia, and occasionally came to meetings and staffed convergence spaces a few times. Your IP got banned by DC Indymedia techs, who wrote code just to block you, after you flooded the site with endless personal attacks, demanding to get your way. This same behavior got you kicked off other DC activist lists.

I respect the Infoshop site which takes alot of work to keep up. But, repeating stupid behavior makes your hard work useless. - From DC

I have no recollection of ever being banned from DC Indymedia or any activist email lists. The fact that anonymous people are making up these stories should say something about the veracity of these stupid allegations. I remember writing a draft of the co-op plan and selling the idea at several meetings. The plan was changed over time as DC Indymedia members talked it over. I was instrumental in talking to people about the DC Indymedia moving into the Flemming Center. Of course, I wasn't the only person involved in that project, but I never said that I did all of the work. I was involved at the time with the infoshop moving into the space (which just celebrated its 3rd anniversary there). I wasn't *just* a member of the infoshop, I was also working within the DC Indymedia and Mutualaid groups, promoting the projects in the center to other groups, and so on. Calling my activities at that time into question not only disrespects my work, but the work that was being done by other people. No, I didn't do everything, which I never claimed, but the work I did on that project was extensive. (I will also note that I was involved with the infoshop group for 4 YEARS before we moved into the Flemming Center, in addition to be involved with various activist projects and my own projects at the time). Chuck0 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, I've really had it with you having lied through your teeth throughout this whole process of reverting my edits, in some vain attempt to keep up appearances.
Does this refresh your memory? This is the full text of attack postings that From DC wrote about:

Blocking access to IMC DC
Author: Chuck0
Date Created: 02 Nov 2003
Date Edited: 02 Nov 2003 08:37:45 PM
Current rating: 5
I'd like to know when the IMC DC editorial group is going to stop blocking my IP from accessing the IMC DC website. This is a pretty bad precedent, for an IMC to single out one media activist for total censorship. Some of you may think you are being really clever with this stunt, but I hope you understand that you are undermining DC activism with this petty decision. I can't do any media work on behalf of DC activists as long as you block me from the website. I can't do any work on behalf of Mayday DC. I can't post event announcements for the Infoshop or other groups. And I can't even post any original journalism that pertains to Washington, DC. You all have made this decision without any form of democratic or due process.
Right now, your run-of-the-mill anti-semite enjoys more freedom on the IMC DC website than a respected, veteran activist.

Chuck0
Homepage -> chuck.mahost.org/
Infoshop.org -> www.infoshop.org/
Monumental Mistake (blog)-> chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php
Practical Anarchy Online -> www.practicalanarchy.org/
Infoshop Portal -> portal.infoshop.org/
Infoshop Science -> science.infoshop.org/
AIM: AgentHelloKitty

"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees." Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)

By the way, here is the link. [6] --Daniel 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a complete lie and fabrication. Daniel is attacking me on behalf of user In the Stacks, which is ironic given that Daniel has links on his user page to Wikipedia community policies on "not using Wikipedia as a personal battleground." This is hypocritical, but more importantly Daniel is assisting In the Stacks in his online harassment campaign against me and his censorship of any links that are critical of organizations that In These Stacks belongs to or has an affinity for. I've been trying to prevent these sectarian nutjobs from removing links that anybody can see belong on this entry. I think that it's about time that Daniel and In the Stacks stop using Wikipedia talk pages to conduct their personal vendetta against me. People have a right to criticize organizations like the RCP and links to those criticisms should be posted. In the Stacks posts his criticisms of anarchist groups all the time to entries on anarchists, so he is just hypocritical about the RCP and ISO links. Chuck0 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
"From DC" -- thanks for reminding folks of the basic facts here. Munson was certainly banned from DC Indymedia, and has had issues elsewhere – including here on Wikipedia for using this entry as a personal page. He's taken to harrassing people and spreading anonymous disinformation. The pattern is pronounced, but since other people thoughtfully don't want to be the agents of Munson's karma, there have been few write-ups on his dubious activities. It might be worthwhile for the folks in DC who had to deal with these activities to detail them, as Munson's aggressive, online behavior is an ongoing issue. Munson's history of bannings (DC Indymedia, Wikipedia, library listserves, DC activist listserves) certainly merits mention in this entry.In the Stacks
It's a good thing that In the Stacks hides behind anonymity because he plays with the facts more than the Bush administration. I'm just amazed that somebody would be so mean and petty that they would stalk me across the Internet and on Wikipedia talk pages. I've told friends about this and they just laugh their asses off. You can't even get your venom right when it comes to this talk page. A few days ago you edited a talk page by mistake, thinking that it was the regular entry about me on Wikipedia. You say above that I'm using this entry as my personal page. Which entry are you talking about? My Wikipedia user page or the Wikipedia bio about me? If you are referring to the latter, I'm definitely not using it as a personal page. Most of my edits to the page have been to correct false information and personal attacks posted to the page.
You have are simply being a wingnut when you say that a history of being "banned" from Internet projects. I've been on the Internet for around 15 years, so I've been on my share of email lists. I've also been part of numerous projects, including DC Indymedia. Like any other member of those projects, I've provided my share of positive contributions and I've gotten into my share of disputes. Conflicts and disputes are what happen in any organization. You are suggesting here that organizations are free of conflict, which is just silly. As for my history with Wikipedia, that is irrelevant to our current disputes. I have a right to defend myself from crazy people who use Wikipedia to attack me, or other folks. Chuck0 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In the Stacks and Daniel are now fabricating rumors and lies about me in order to deflect attention away from their censorship of my contributions to Wikipedia. In the Stacks has demonstrated an obsessive need to protect his identity, so his anonymous personal attacks here should be taken with a grain of salt. Daniel is a friend of In the Stacks and should be seen as a proxy in this ongoing campaign against me using Wikipedia.
I was in fact a member of DC Indymedia for three years, which isn't relevant to this dispute because it has nothing to do with the links that In the Stacks keeps removing from entries. For the record, I searched my computer and found the document that I wrote in February 2003 for DC Indymedia which promoted the co-op model. It is titled "Thoughts on a Co-Op Model for the IMC-DC" and here is an excerpt:
 I’ve been asked to share my thoughts on an co-op model for the IMC-DC, as a result of discussions
 held at the recent IMC retreat. I have experience being a member of three different co-ops. I was 
 a member of the Mifflin Street food co-op in Madison, Wisconsin for several years in the early 90s. 
 At roughly this same time, I lived at the Rivendell housing co-op. Right after this period, I was 
 a volunteer at Rainbow Books, which is a cooperative bookstore in Madison.

 One of the break-out discussion groups at the recent IMC retreat dealt with the idea of running the 
 Independent Media Center of Washington, DC on a co-op model. There was some discussion about how the 
 IMC kind of already functioned as a co-op. We also talked about what constitutes being a member in 
 the IMC. All of this relates to other ongoing discussions happening about the IMC, as well as the 
 fact that the IMC will shortly move into a new space.
In the Stacks and Daniel are obviously unaware of this document, as they live in New York City and weren't active members of DC Indymedia. Of course, this is all just a deflection from the ongoing censorship of links to entries. Chuck0 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Readers of Wikipedia: I was a critic of Chuck Munson once upon a time. All I have to say, at this time, is that Paul Avrich has a very short entry on Wiki, and Mr. Munson has a very long one. I believe that this does not speak well of quality considerations on Wiki --especially when the observer happens to be an informed anarchist. I have known both these men along the years, and I am most disappointed with these assigned shoe-sizes. Yours respectfully, BobHelms 03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As an earlier poster remarked, Chuck certainly did *not* write the coop plan of DC Indymedia. More broadly, I would not include Chuck in a list of those of those involved in founding and doing the core work of DC Indymedia. His relationship with the DC IMC was tangential and often at sharp odds with the DC Indymedia collective--at one point he even had to be banned from the collective's website because of repeated abusive postings--and so to see DC Indymedia listed here as a sort of activist credential for him is troubling and inaccurate. Chuck Munson has several activist projects that he deserves credit and well-earned praise for, but DC Indymedia isn't one of them.

[edit] Uh, Chuck, read Wikipedia:No original research. . .

. . . and read the part on the difference between "original research" and "primary sources." The archive of D.C. Indymedia's editorial collective, which happens to include emails written by "the subject" (i.e. - you yourself). Feel free to deny that you were ever banned; the primary sources say otherwise. --Daniel 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, do you care to state who you are so we can establish some accountability in this exchange. It's pretty clear that you posted a personal attack against me. This is rumor-mongering. You've posted a trivial incident that happened years ago in an effort to paint me in a bad light. You've provided no context to that incident. Your addition doesn't mention that the crux of that dispute was my anger at people who controlled the DC Indymedia website who were acting in a manner that ran contrary to Indymedia principles. Other people voiced similar criticisms. Your addition also doesn't mention that I was a member of DC Indymedia for several years, contributing original articles, doing trainings, attending meetings, and doing outreach. I even wrote up the co-op plan for DC Indymedia which they adopted when they moved into their space at the Flemming Center. I was also instrumental in getting the project to move into that space.
The fact that I had a conflict with other DC Indymedia members is not noteworthy enough to be included in this article. If it's not selective, original research, then it's simply a mean-spirited personal attack. Chuck0 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, you can read my User Page and do your own googling. On my contribution on the entry on you (which is not "your" article that you have any control over): this isn't rumor mongering, it's a pretty well-documented incident that happened in the not-too-distant past. That you feel it portrays you in a negative light is unfortunate, but the incident is neutrally reported. That it lacks portrayal of you in a positive light is also unfortunate, but no one is under any obligation to make you look good (or ill, for that matter) but to tell the truth.
I'm re-adding the text to the entry, as it is factual and documented, and your actions here have been totally censorious and counter to the aims of the WP:AUTO guidelines. --Daniel 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The material in question is sourced from emails sent to a listserver, which do not meet our standard for reliable sources, WP:RS. Since the informaiton is derogatory, I have removed it in accordance with WP:BLP. If proper sources for the material can be found then it can be included. -Will Beback 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I knew there probably was a logical Wikipedia policy that prevents people from adding information like this. Chuck0 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, are you saying your emails and your blog are not reliable? Because I didn't. --Daniel 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The subject's blog may be used as a primary source for his opinions, but not as a source for anything else. Emails are easily spoofed and may not be used as sources for anything. -Will Beback 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Munson is a blogger, partly why he's considered "notable" enough to have an entry. Are you, or Chuck, saying that his blog is 1) unreliable, and 2) a derogatory statement against Chuck's character? --Daniel 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe this entry was first created because I am a prominent activist in the anarchist and anti-globalization movements. The stuff about blogging was added later. I really don't understand why you feel the need to add derogatory claims to a Wikipedia biography. The information that was added was completely decontextualized and cast me unfavorably. A susequent change went further to claim that I'm a controversial person on the Internet. If anything, this stuff violates Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Point of View. Chuck0 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, I really don't know why it is you feel that information that you blog about, sourced not through somebody else but through direct links, is "derogatory." And by the way, thanks for the gratuitous personal attack where you manage to continue in a long chain of just plain incorrect "outings." --Daniel 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This page is now protected due to the revert war. Please discuss the disputed material here and work to find a consensus version. -Will Beback 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a consensus resolution on such matters; they're called WP:OWN and WP:AUTO. This "revert war" has resulted entirely from Munson interfering in the addition of factual, well-sourced information on this entry simply because he dislikes what it says about him, as well as his attitude that this entry "belongs" to him.

In fact, his actions completely prove what was said about him -- all the more reason to have it included. --Daniel 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The guideline WP:AUTO does not prohibit a subject from editing a biography, it merely discourages the practice. The guideline WP:CON requires that editors seek agreement. In this case the editors need to agree on how to present this information. Making sure that the presentation is NPOV is probably the most important factor in making the material mutually agreeable. -Will Beback 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Note also the WP:BLP is an important policy. We need to be doubly sure about the sourcing and NPOV of derogatory information about living people. -Will Beback 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when were facts derogatory or not a matter of Wikipedia's criteria? They're facts, much more than the WP:Peacock terms that are used in their absence. They're certainly not defamatory, or else Munson would have threatened a lawsuit by now. And since when were the subject's own blog postings on his opinion not considered evidence of his opinion?
[removed personal attack]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me remind you that the subject is also an editor here. We have no tolerance for personal attacks on editors, WP:NPA. Please keep your opinions to yourself or you will not be allowed to edit here. -Will Beback 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's no tolerance for "personal attacks", then why is Munson continually allowed to leave them in edit summaries and on Talk Pages? --Daniel 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Any cursory review of Munson's editing history involves chronic attacks on his self-selected enemies. Further, as a matter of habit, he engages in unsubstantiated personal attacks. These can be observed as Daniel notes above. Noting his history of being banned from various activist project and electronic media is not defamatory. Munson was blocked from DC Indymedia and numerous other projects for exactly this kind of behavior. Refusing to allow a note of it is strange, particularly when it is the subject of this entry who is refusing to allow any content on his page that doesn't meet his approval -- facts be damned! In the Stacks
Facts are what an encyclopedia is all about. Cold hard facts are hard to find, though, and even harder to present neutrally. At Wikipedia we've recently upgraded our treatment of living people by adopting a new policy: WP:BLP. Among all of our categories of articles, biographies of living people deserve the greatest care. As with all articles, verifiable information presented neutrally is acceptabe. Derogatory material without proper sourcing should be removed. I'm sure we can all agree on the simple facts of the matter, and we needn't speculate beyond that. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores. -Will Beback 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The facts are that Chuck Munson has been banned from commenting/contributing to several websites for his actions: D.C. Indymedia, Wikipedia, and elsewhere. This is established by the fact that he whined about these bans on his own blog, which was cited. But apparently, Munson wants to deny the fact that these bans even occurred, and has engaged in typical edit warring.
The WP:BLP stuff was meant to keep Wikipedia from becoming a hive of just plain false -- e.g., defamatory and libelous -- information that could get the website sued. There isn't anything "derogatory" about the facts about a subject; that is, unless the subject has a vested interest in obfuscation, which from his actions is plain to see. --Daniel 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

If people really, really want to include some criticism of me in this entry, I would be ok with putting back the article by Kirsten Anderberg. The rant is totally inaccurate and easy to refute, but at least she published it on her blog. Or, if people want another piece of criticism, you can cite the small bit about me in the latest issue of Green Anarchy. Chuck0 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you're only interested in criticism when you can easily dismiss it. As opposed to when it's documented, objective, and to-the-point. You got banned from Wikipedia (whose editors you then went on to curse out on your blog for not letting you edit your page) and banned by D.C. Indymedia for flooding the wire. While it may not satisfy your ego that two online communities you've used for self-promotion decided you were too much of a pest, it's at least factual information. --Daniel 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I haven't used either of these communities for self-promotion. You really don't know anything about me, do you? The Wikipedia entry about me was created by somebody else. I've added a few things to explain the kind of work that I do, but if anything, this entry really understates my contributions and activities. Chuck0 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
i agree with daniel that the anderberg piece should stay down, even if Chuck wants it up. The reason? It's just generalized ad hominum attacks and ranting. The information about his history of bitter entanglements with Indymedia and Wikipedia seems entirely fair, fact-based and not derogatory. there is no claim that these situations did not happen, or that Chuck M. has not himself documented them. Attempts to remove what may be taken as unflattering are just the same as padding a resume. Compromise: The disputes stay up, hackneyed and raving attacks get taken down. Since he is a living person, obviously the rules of Wikipedia governing the situation are in full effect -- and more than fair. They just don't apply to things that have actually happened, that are obviously of import for what makes this person tick, and that are not in dispute. Chuck M. doesn't want people to read about them NOW, though he clearly put much time into it in the past... hence, a biographical entry... not an auto-biographical entry. In the Stacks
I'm not interested in compromising with somebody who has a long history of posting defamatory material about me to various websites. I think that any rational Wikipedia volunteer would agree that it is absurd to expect me to compromise with such a person. Your twisting of this discussion would end up violating the Wikipedia policy that is clearly posted above: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." In The Stacks is clearly trying to use Wikipedia to continue his attacks against my reputation. This would be considered libel by any legal definition.
Links to e-mail lists are not credible sources and since nothing about these allegations exist on my blog, there is no acceptable reason for In the Stacks to use this entry to libel me. What In the Stacks proposes would violate Wikipedia's policies about biographies and proportionality. Once again, I propose that the Anderberg link be put up again and that the unsourced material be left out of the entry. If people want another critical link relating to me, then I'll suggest Carol Moore's The Return of Street Fighting Man. Otherwise, what In the Stacks is proposing to add is unsourced hearsay and rumors.
Chuck, you are just plain off the mark here. I was the one who put up the information -- not Stacks. And no, I'm not a "sock puppet" of his, since it's quite obvious (by the fact that I use my real-world name here) that I'm not Stacks.
First, you trivialize the evidence put forward. The emails in question weren't just emails, they were the emails of the official D.C. Indymedia editorial list. The list-serv quite secure, from what I understand, and there's no reason to believe people are going around impersonating your former co-collective members - or yourself.
Second, you're obfuscating, if not outright lying, about never having stated on your blog that you were banned. You did, in fact, do so -- and later hid it. However, it's still Google cached and ready to see here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:TprkAo6Pq2gJ:chuck.mahost.org/weblog/%3Fp%3D290+site:chuck.mahost.org+banned+Indymedia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
In case you were wondering, what you wrote was this:

About two weeks ago, several people affiliated with the DC Independent Media Center instituted a ban against me, which prevents me from not only posting to the IMC DC website, but prevents me from even viewing the IMC DC website.

This entry is date-stamped November 6, 2003. This happens to coincide with the date on the email (exact date November 12, 2003) that explains why you were banned: http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-dc-editorial/2003-November/005919.html .
The evidence is ample, and the only reason for the passages' has been your attempt to steer the direction of "your" article in a manner that is antithetical to the aims of Wikipedia. --Daniel 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Chuck, would you like to tell us which administrator you went to with your accusation of libel, and when I should expect to be served notice by your lawyers? Or is this another attempt at chilling debate using legal threats? --Daniel 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What is your beef with me? As far as I can tell from looking at your profile, you are friends or comrades offline with the person who attacks me using the account here "In the Stacks." It appears that he is using you as a proxy at this point, which would be typical behavior for him. If that is the case, I suggest you recuse yourself from this discussion and find something else to do at Wikipedia. Chuck0 06:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing on my blog about these so-called accusations, so you are just fishing here for a cheap way to attack me. Am I trying to chill debate using legal threats? Where the hell do you get such an idea? When I pointed out that the stuff being posted could be construed as libel, I was merely pointing out that Wikipedia HAS A POLICY, stated above, against the inclusion of material in biographical entries that could constitute libel. The content that two of you are attempting to add to my entry consists of unsourced hearsay and innuendo. This information does not add anything of importance to the entry, if it were true. Chuck0 06:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Truth is an absolute defense against libel. You posted about the ban to your blog, it is really just plain to see for all those who see the Google cache, and unless you libeled yourself you're confirming what's just as plain to see from the D.C. IMC list emails.
Chuck, please, just get over it. You got IP banned, and that's that. --Daniel 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Truth" is not a concern for Wikipedia. Our concern is verifiability. Also note that our job is to create neutral, balanced articles, not attack pieces. -Will Beback 22:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Chuck's blog does the verification. Now will you and Chuck quit filibustering, and quit acting as if editing is all about stoking Chuck's ego? --Daniel 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
We can include balanced material that is properly sourced. Do you have a reliable source for this assertion? -Will Beback 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The reliable source is Chuck Munson's blog posting from the time period and the emails. Before we go into another circle-jerk - note that a) Chuck's blog is considered noteworthy enough to be included in this page, b) that D.C. Indymedia network relies upon secure and moderated list-servs, because these emails are used for official purposes (moderation of disputes, etc.), and c) the D.C. Indymedia stuff is totally relevant since Chuck mentions his role there. All of which should lead one to believe that this is worthy of citation.
What is unreliable, Will, is Chuck Munson's word right now, as he is making a bald-faced lie that he never wrote a blog post admitting that he got banned. The blog post is merely hidden - it is still available via Google cache, and it states right away that he got banned. Period. End of story. Note as well that while Chuck has lied about the blog posting, he has only chosen to mislead and use euphemism on the question of the ban itself -- all the while engaging in personal attacks in an attempt to shoot-the-messenger.
As for Chuck's proposal, none of the links he lists are any more credible than the ones I provided. My own proposal is that Chuck be banned from tampering with this article permanently, in light of his established record of doing this. --Daniel 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Emails and Google caches are not reliable sources. One of the reasons why we have the WP:V policy is that it sets a baseline for notability of facts. It may be a fact that a subject leaves the toilet lid up or helps little old ladies across the street, but unless those facts have been reported in reliable sources then they are both unverifiable and non-notable. The fact, if it is one, that this subject has been banned from some forums is not notable enough to have been discussed in a newspaper or magazine. It's hard not to see it as a very minor episode. Your single-minded intent to include the information makes it appear that your interest isn't in helping Wikipedia build a better encyclopedia, but in settling some score with the subject. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -Will Beback 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no personal axes to grind with Chuck. I've never met the man -- and after this interaction, I have no intention on ever doing so.
I would question your logic on the notability of Chuck Munson's blog. If Chuck Munson's blog is not notable, then the link to the blog in the article should be removed as blogspam. And moreover, if it this is a "minor episode" in Munson's activism career, then why is Chuck fighting this to the point that he is using legal threats? --Daniel 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. If the subject has made one then it should be removed. Per WP:RS and WP:AUTO, blogs and other personal sites may be used only as primary sources for the author's viewpoints. If Munson's blog contains commentary on the matter then we can reference that commentary. The degree to which a subject objects to information is not an objective measure of its notability. -Will Beback 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Will, thanks for your diligent participation here. It should be clear that I have made no legal threats. In the above discussion I pointed out that certain material about me could be seen as libelous, which would violate Wikipedia's policies. I didn't say anything about acting on this through legal means. As an anarchist, I am extremely reluctant to resort to legal channels. As far as the severity of this material being libelous, it is pretty minor, given that my reputation has been subjected to far worse rumor-mongering and so on. But Wikipedia discourages this kind of content and I think that this kind of material just doesn't belong in any reference source unless it is newsworthy. As for my blog being notable--it is notable in terms of it being one of my projects, thus relevant to an entry about me. The blog is widely read, at least that's what Technorati says in its ratings. Chuck0 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, really, you're arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. Wikipedia's policy on libel is meant for one thing: to make sure the Wikipedia Foundation doesn't get dragged into a libel suit. You had absolutely no grounds to bring the L word into this, unless what was posted fulfilled the legal definition of it. It did not. In fact, I'd bet you wouldn't want a lawsuit, given that it would mean this would be put to discovery as a matter of legal record.
As for newsworthiness, Chuck -- you were banned from D.C. Indymedia for postings you made to the IMC's newswire. Repeatedly. You obviously felt the internal workings of the D.C. Indymedia collective, and your role in that, were newsworthy when you posted that stuff. Suddenly it isn't, because your former co-collective members decided to take disciplinary action? Your conflict of interest (and insertion of POV into this entry) is showing.
And by the way, Chuck, thank you for asserting that your blog is notable in an article about you. Now would you kindly cease censoring its citation of the posting you made to this wonderful, notable blog about you, where you publicly stated you had your IP banned by D.C. Indymedia. --Daniel 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[ removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Chuck on this one. I personally had not heard anything about this DC indymedia thing until it was brought up here, so I'm not sure it's really all that notable. Unless I've just been under a rock, it seems pretty trivial. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Edit warring over a template? What's going on here exactly? Please use the talk page to discuss your differences in a civil manner. Gamaliel 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your protection of the current page introduces a point of view to the entry. The template basically states that all of the content below that point is in dispute, when in fact NONE of that content is in dispute. What is in dispute are some allegations posted to THIS TALK PAGE. Your protection of the page is a tacit sign of support for the users who are using Wikipedia to conduct personal attacks. You may think that you are helping this situation, but you've simply discredited yourself and Wikipedia even more. Several users are engaging in personal attacks against me using Wikipedia because they have unilaterally decided that I can't post links to several pages. One of these users has even posted on Wikipedia that he won't allow these links to appear on these pages. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and it principles. Chuck0 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As per our Wikipedia:Protection policy: "A protection is not an endorsement of the current version." The solution is to address the issues at hand and not worry about what version is protected by a temporary block or by attacking the person who is attempting to solve this problem.
Now the editor or editors who are disputing that section of the article should post here a concise account of what disputes they have with the factual accuracy of that section. If they do not do so in a timely manner I will remove the template myself and remove it again if it is restored. If they do post whatever issues they have then we can address them. Gamaliel 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the entry on Chuck Munson (User Chuck0) is in dispute.
[removed personal attack by User:In the Stacks ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions about Munson do not address the matter of what is factually in dispute about this particular article. If you have issues with Munson's behavior, take it up on his personal talk page or file an RFC. This is not the proper forum. Gamaliel 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I for one would like to see In the Stacks stop interfering in my participation on Wikipedia. This is what this is really about. Chuck0 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In this article, the information (with citations) related to Munson's contentious internet activism should be included so long as it is verifiable. From what I saw, it certainly was – with linked footnotes to the appropriate sources. I was not the author of this information, though I am familiar with his history. I'm at work now and have exhausted my free time to deal with this for the day. The information regarding his bans from numerous online forums is not factually in dispute, nor regarding its verifiability. Munson just finds it unflattering, and has attempted to keep it off the page. As this online activism is his main point of note regarding the entry, the current entry bears little resemblance to the really-existing Munson. He is welcome to participate in Wikipedia, but should read the above note. Also, thanks to Gamaliel for explaining how to file a complaint. I will be pursuing that. In the Stacks
Could you provide a link to the diff where Munson removed material you would like to see in the article? If we can agree on a mutually acceptable version of this material that is within Wikipedia guidelines, then we can end this dispute. Gamaliel 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. There are several complaints here:
1) Most recently, Chuck0 reverted the application of a Disputed template to the section desribing his activism: [7]
This is in dispute because a) Munson added several of the passages contained there himself, b) provided no citation of his claims, and c) someone claiming at some personal knowledge of events described there (Chuck's supposed co-operative plan for the D.C. Indymedia Center) contradicted those claims.
Chuck replied to placement of the Disputed tag by reverting its addition by myself (and later, In The Stacks' reversions), claiming "vandalism". Further, Munson started revert war on this Talk Page, over matters which I will get to in the next point.
2) Back in August, Chuck0 started a revert war over an addition I made within the article, (see this diff: [8] ), in which I attempted to bring the article away from POV (that is, the POV of Munson and his supporters) toward NPOV; that is, I put forward evidence that projects and groups Munson either claims to have started or to claims to have have been a major member of (D.C. Anti-Capitalist Convergence and D.C. Indymedia) ended up either pushing him out or disciplining him over his behavior; also, I felt Chuck's description of himself as a pioneer of the internet ought to have been balanced with a description of his reputation on the internet is.
This evidence included the following:
  • Emails from the official list-serv of the D.C. Editorial Colletive, which described how Chuck Munson had been I.P. banned from using the D.C. Indymedia open publishing feature.
  • The Google-cache (since expired) of a deleted blog entry from "another blog is possible" (Chuck's blog), that was dated within November 2003, in which Chuck0 clearly described that very same ban.
  • A blog entry (still up) in which Chuck gave his own account of how he got banned from a librarian's list-serv for what he himself called a "confrontational approach."
  • A link to an IP ban issued against Chuck from Wikipedia itself (!) for having edited the very entry we're talking about.
I attempted to sort things out here, and Chuck basically responded by denying that any of the above incidents ever happened. He managed to convince someone that the evidence provided and cited should be ignored, under what I feel are dubious grounds. Shortly after that, the article was locked.
When the article went unlocked, this issue flared up like a hemmroid again, with In The Stacks and Chuck trading reverts on this article (centered around the IP ban issue). Chuck claimed up and down that either that he didn't recall any such ban or denied it outright.
In response, I came forward with new evidence here, that included posting a link and the whole contents (verbatim) an Indymedia article signed in Chuck Munson's name, that included Chuck's sign-off (e.g., links to his site, Infoshop, and his blog). In that article, he is clearly talking about an IP ban against him. I did, however, post it on the Talk Page, rather than the main page.
On the most NPOV manner of dealing with what I wrote, understand that I wrote the most NPOV possible excerpt on Chuck having been banned from discussion lists, Indymedia, and Wikipedia. I made no mention of whether these bans were justified, just that they happened, and unlike Chuck and his puff-piece additions I actually bothered to show the evidence. --Daniel 01:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[removed personal attack by User:Dtasripin ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[removed personal attack by User:Dtasripin ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I just looked at the history for several of the entries in question. What's obvious is that entry histories are not the most accurate representation of the context involved in editing disputes. People make changes when they aren't logged in. They make changes from various IPs and user accounts. In the Stacks has even gotten confused to the point where he accused Ungovernable Force of being my sockpuppet. So I looked at the history files for the ISO, RCP and WCW entries. The seeds of this dispute go back to at least June 2006, when In the Stacks started removing links to Infoshop pages as well as any anarchist criticism of these groups. I should note that edit wars on entries like the ISO go back to at least the beginning of this year and involve people outside of this dispute.
In late June, In the Stacks removed some links from the RCP page. I didn't start restoring links and text until late July. After several exchanges in August, I decided to create the page on the RCP and World Can't Wait, in order to source and document anarchist criticism of these groups. I made a good faith effort to document anarchist criticism of the RCP and WCW, which was what was being removed from entries on these groups. There is substantial anarchist criticism of the RCP. In the Stacks has shown that he will not allow even LINKS to pages that are critical of the RCP.
[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've explained numerous times, I have never "linkbaited" the article on the RCP. Wikipedia exists to provide people with access to information, news and opinion. Every time that In the Stacks removes a link from these entries, he deprives Wikipedia users of being able to access the content on the other side of those links. As for your comments about Alexa and the need to pump up the traffic to websites/blogs--I don't need to do that because these websites and blogs are already popular. Alexa is not even an accurate measure of website popularity, but you wouldn't know that since you aren't a webmaster of web developer. Alexa's deficiencies are well known to programmers and web developers. Chuck0 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[removed personal attack by User:Dtasripin ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try this again

This bickering has long since gotten out of hand and it's going to stop now, please. Aside from being completely uninteresting, there's about 30 or 40 violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL above. Let's focus on the content of the article and not personalities. Whatever attacks or breaches of the rules that were committed elsewhere can be dealt with elsewhere. If people don't feel like handling it that way, then I'm going to start removing posts and blocking repeat offenders.

Now in regards to the content of the article, note that this is an encyclopedia, and it is not enough that the subject of the article wrote or did something somewhere. It must be 1) important enough to be in an encyclopedia article and 2) it must be documented by a reliable source. Now the subject's own blog is a reliable source, only for the opinions and actions of that person. A contentious issue here seems to be whether or not we should include information about the various bans that Munson has allegedly been subject to. Is that correct? If so, then are these bans 1) reliably documented and 2) important enough to be included? Can we discuss that question in a civil manner? Gamaliel 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have decided not to stop responding to provocations by the other two parties. You make it sound like the content in the article about me is being disputed. It is not! The only reason why we are having this discussion here is because it was moved from another talk page, where we were arguing about the removal of content posted to articles that have nothing to do with me personally. The issue here are changes being made to articles about the ISO, RCP and WCW. The only reason why the article about me is being talked about is because one of the partisans in this debate decided to make this a personal dispute. The flagged section in the article about me has existed for months and has been seen by many Wikipedia editors. That section describes a few things that I'm involved in, which are all noteworthy. Gamaliel, if you are going to get involved in this, it is incumbent upon you to understand the context. Daniel only questioned the content of this article yesterday, in an attempt to make a dispute about editing other pages more personal. Chuck0 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the underlying reasons for this personal conflict, there seem to be valid issues of content to be addressed, as seen in the section below. If you feel these issues of content have been brought up to harrass you by editors you have come into conflict with in the past, then perhaps a case for Wikistalking can be made. However, I'd prefer to see if we can come to a mutually acceptable compromise regarding this article and perhaps bring this conflict to an end in that manner. Gamaliel 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indeed, let's try again

The article lists Chuck as a member of the D.C. Indymedia collective, librarian and as a guy with a presence of the web. Which is all fine and dandy by me -- but if that's considered important, then his actions (and interactions with others) are also important.
The documentation of Chuck Munson being I.P. banned from D.C. Indymedia:
I will also note that all of the above materials were/are dated to November 2003 - so they're all discussing the same ban.
Documentation of Chuck Munson being banned from Web4lib list-serv:
Documentation of Chuck Munson being I.P. banned by Wikipedia:
If you will investigate the diff file, I made no claims as to whether these bans were correct or incorrect -- just that Chuck's a controversial figure in his work, especially online. No pronouncements as to whether Chuck was in the right or in the wrong. The additions were as NPOV as possible.
Further, these additions were entirely relevant. Claims are made as to Chuck Munson's importance to the Indymedia movement, and to the internet. If this is considered relevant, then his conduct in those fields is relevant as well.
I will add further: edits Chuck has made himself (claiming to have been a crucial member of D.C. Indymedia, being behind its co-op plan, etc., as well as his deletion of information on his I.P. ban) were put into dispute here by "from DC". I added the "disputed" tag because of this. The simple application of the "disputed" tag, in a good faith effort to have these things cleared up on the Talk Page rather than by edit war on the article, was almost immediately reverted by Chuck -- who didn't even bother to make a good faith explanation of his side of that dispute, before going into personal attacks. --Daniel 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Daniel is engaged in personal attacks against me on behalf of In the Stacks. Daniel didn't have a problem with the article about me until yesterday. Go read the history file. He decided to attack me here yesterday on behalf of In the Stacks, because that user was losing his campaign to keep links from being added to the entries about the ISO, RCP and WCW. Daniel is violating a policy that he cited here, WP:DICK. Or is that a Wikipedia philosophy? In any case, there hasn't been any edit activity on this article for a month preceding yesterday. The last period of edits and reverts involved user In the Stacks making the same arguments here that Daniel is making. Daniel is engaged in proxy personal attacks on behalf of user In the Stacks. Again, WP:DICK.
I'm really tired of how the looking glass world of Wikipedia claims that is has policies against the use of Wikipedia to conduct personal attacks, yet allows selective vendettas. At this point, I'd like for Daniel and user In the Stacks to cease and desist from any further attacks on me on this talk page or any other talk page. I'm willing to talk about whether or not links should be added to the RCP, ISO, and WCW pages, but the these users have to stop their online harassment of me and my participation in Wikipedia. My next step at this point will be to ask for third party conflict resolution from Wikipedia volunteers. Chuck0 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Other than the snide opening remark, which I have already removed, and the reference to a "tirade", which I have removed with this edit, Daniel's comments here seem fairly reasonable. Let's all try to forget past attacks, resist attempts to sneak snide remarks into otherwise civil discussion, and wipe the slate clean so we can make progress. Gamaliel 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Daniel's remarks are not reasonable. Any reasonable person can see that Daniel is attacking me as a proxy for user In the Stacks. I'm not going to forget past attacks as I am a real person whose reputation is being attacked here! I am not going to stand for any efforts to make it seem like this is just a regular discusion over edits to a web page. The context of Daniel's attacks are important here. He is acting as a proxy for somebody who has been stalking me on the Internet for more than three years. Daniel took the dispute over the ISO/WCW/RCP edits and made it personal. Chuck0 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever this ISO/WCW/RCP dispute is, WP:AGF requires that I treat this issue as a sincere attempt to place relevant information in the article and not assume that it is motivated by a desire to attack you. A news article in LJ certainly is enough reason to at least discuss potentially including these events. While you may feel that discussing these past events is a personal attack, calling someone names definately is a personal attack and I have removed those comments. Please don't make such remarks again. Gamaliel 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, but as they say, you can't be neutral on a moving train. The challenge to the information in this article is not an honest, neutral attempt to improve the article. The context of the ISO/WSW/RCP dispute is of relevance here, if Daniel's points are being considered. He is simply not a neutral Wikipedian interested in improving this article. He has posted charges here which contain misinformation that he has gotten from user In the Stacks. That user has engaged in online defamation and harassment against me on various Internet sites for 'several years. This is not about the article about me. Chuck0 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My intial opinions - more indepth comments to follow if necessary. The Web4Lib listserv ban seems to meet the bar for inclusion, as it was deemed important enough to be mentioned in LJ and Munson's blog provides a source for his perspective. The Wikipedia "ban" - which was merely a temporary 3RR block of 24 hours - should absolutely not be mentioned at all as it a routine and unimportant violation that happens to probably dozens of people a day and doesn't meet any sort of standard for an encyclopedic noteworthiness.
Let's please forget about the edit war over the dispute tag as that isn't important to the underlying issues of content. Gamaliel 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This certainly is a compelling point, that even though it was covered by LJ, it was a relatively minor incident and perhaps should be excluded on that basis. If you were personally attacked by Dr. Laura and the flying monkey right, then perhaps we should include coverage of that incident and place the ban in a larger context. Gamaliel 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have nothing to hide about my activism in the library world. I had forgotten about the Library Journal piece, which I remember now as being one of those paragraph pieces in their news briefs section. The context of my banning is pretty important, because it involved a long-running war between librarians and proponents of liberary censorware. The other side included a librarian named David Burt, who ran a pro-filtering website and who enlisted Dr. Laura. He eventually left his librarian job and took a job with a censorware company. People on the Web4lib list were tired of the dispute, but the banning of both David and myself really marked an abdication of the library community when it came to fighting censorship. Chuck0 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia "ban" - which was merely a temporary 3RR block of 24 hours - should absolutely not be mentioned at all as it a routine and unimportant violation that happens to probably dozens of people a day and doesn't meet any sort of standard for an encyclopedic noteworthiness.
Exactly! Thanks for pointing this out, which just goes to show that Daniel is just digging up mud as grist for his personal attacks. I was temporarily banned by Wikipedia because of the 3RR rule. I wasn't that familiar with Wikipedia policies at the time and I was frustrated with somebody who was, once again, using my article to attack me. At this point I understand Wikipedia policies much better and could have simply cited the policy about not using Wikipedia as a battleground. The 3RR rule is a good idea, but in my case the content involved inaccurate rumors being posted about me. If I could do that incident over again, I would have simply waited for another editor to fix the edit, or I could have asked other editors to intervene. Chuck0 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[removed personal attack by User:Dtasripin ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note to all participants

Please remember that this is the talk page for this particular article. It is not a place to rehash grievances regarding behavior in other articles or offsite. If there is or has been a problem with another article, please discuss that article on the talk page for that particular article. If there is or has been a problem with a user's behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia, there are other forums for you to address your grievances, and I will assist you with that if necessary. This page is not that forum. Thank you. Gamaliel 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] related discussion of Munson editing entry on himself

What about Munson's call to "boycott" Wikipedia? He's erased it from his blog, but there's some discussion of it in a previous round of Munson-related Wikiwars... also related to a separate instance of Munson editing the entry on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics_and_law/Closed#Chuck_Munson In the Stacks

That may be of interest to editors, but we don't use Wikipedia as a source. We wouldn't include that kind of info in an article. -Will Beback 02:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another county heard from

FWIW, the material that Chuck removed here strikes me as being about a petty squabble that is not of any encyclopedic significance. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If Chuck's role on Indymedia and other websites is considered of encyclopedic significance, then his actions there are worth examination. --Daniel 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Our rule of thumb for notability is coverage by reliable sources. It doesn't appear that anyone has reported on his actions there. -Will Beback 19:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Reliable sources... like Chuck himself? Like the D.C. IMC who had to sift through a bunch of emails from Chuck's friends asking why he was banned?
Please check the above list I've compiled for all the instances in which Chuck has admitted to being banned, tossed or told to check his conduct online. In each case I've bothered to go as close to primary sources as possible. That Chuck doesn't want them up isn't a good enough excuse for excluding them, especially since this is essentially trying to put toothpaste back into a tube. The truth is out there... --Daniel 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLP. We generally give a great deal of deference (too much perhaps) to living people when it comes to their biography articles. They are, of course, not the final word, but their wishes should be heard, though not necessarily adhered to. Munson's wish to exclude something does not mean that it automatically should be excluded, but there must be a compelling reason to include the information - you must have reliable sources and show that the information is significant enough to be included. So far there isn't a clear cut case for inclusion for all this material, and some of it, like the 3RR block, should obviously be excluded.
I'm going to unlock the article now. I ask that the parties please continue to use the talk page in a civil manner and not rush to make their edits and restart the edit war. Gamaliel 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employee of the state

I went ahead an noted that he is employed by the state as a librarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your honor (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Gamaliel why did you remove that addition to the article?

I removed your commentary again. This is not the place for a discussion regarding your thoughts about the "credibility" of the subject of the article. Regarding your addition, I removed it because it was unsourced and obviously motivated by your opinons regarding his credibility. If you wish to add information regarding his employment, it must be specific (i.e., name the library, don't just say "the state") and from a credible source. Thank you. Gamaliel 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's just that it's significant that someone who says he is an anarchist receives his paycheck from the state. He says he works for state university libraries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your honor (talk • contribs).
Your Honor is using Wikipedia to harass me with made-up crap. I haven't worked for a university library in over ten years. This nonsense shows why edits from anoanymous, unregistered users should be taken with a grain of salt. Chuck0 22:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean I'm unregistered? I'm just as registered as you are. Anyway, while you're here, who is your employer now? Are you being paid with tax dollars? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your honor (talk • contribs).
The fact that you are asking such a question means that you are not interested in being a constructive Wikipedian. What Wikipedians do for a living and who they get paid by is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Chuck0 23:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's very relevant. This article is about you. What you do for a living is very important so we can get a sense of who you are. If you're living off the state, that would be very interesting.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your honor (talk • contribs).
No, it's only interesting to crackpots such as yourself. Chuck0 23:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least we know you're a person that makes personal attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your honor (talk • contribs).
Your honor, I notice that you have been repeatedly inserting Murray Rothbard into Anarchism in the United States, even though Rothbard was also "an employee of the state". That appears to be inconsistent with your editing here and makes it appear that you are not editing neutrally. Can you explain the difference? -Will Beback · † · 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If Rothbard claimed he was an anarchist while being an employee of the state, that would be relevant as well. I'm not aware of Rothbard being funded through taxes. But if you have such information then please add it to the Rothbard article. If it is true that Rothbard was supported by tax dollars then it would cast his anarchism into doubt, in my opinion. But he should still not be removed because the sources say he was an anarchist. What matters on Wikipedia is what the sources say. We are not free to push our own personal POV in articles. Chuck Munson pushes his personal POV in Wikipedia articles. He is removing the section on Rothbard in the aforementioned article because he personally disagrees that Rothbard was an anarchist.
Rothbard was a professor at a state university. Rothbard is not usually called an "anarchist", but rather an anarcho-capitalist which is a different thing. Perhaps that kind of anarchist is allowed to take tax dollars for their salary, or to subsidize their foundations with tax deductions. In any case, let's stick with summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Let's avoid the kind of vrevert wars that are going on at Anarchism in the United States. -Will Beback · † · 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Anarcho-capitalist is simply short for anarchist capitalist or capitalist anarchist. Just as anarcho-communists are supposed to be anarchists, anarcho-capitalists are supposed to be anarchists. There are various schools of anarchism. "Anarcho" doesn't mean not anarchist. And yes let's stick with reliable sources. That's what I've been saying. The sources in that article explicitly say that Rothbard is an "individualist anarchist." Anarcho-capitalism is one of several individualist forms of anarchism.

[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I guess I'm not an anarchist anymore since I tutor immigrants at a public college and get my paycheck from said public college. Guess I have to start going to a private school to get paid. This is ridiculous. As he well knows, I'm not a huge fan of Chuck, but I'm getting sick of all these attacks on him here for really stupid things. Even In the Stacks is reverting your edits. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How many personal attacks are you going to make after already being warned? (A true anarchist would not accept tax dollars by the way). If you call yourself an anarchist, that's fine and good, but the question is if scholarly opinion is that you're an anarchist. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
[removed unsigned personal attack]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get off saying that a "true anarchist doesn't take tax dollars"? How the hell am I supposed to earn a living as a librarian? Why don't you just say that I'm not a true anarchist because I drive on roads built and maintained by taxpayer dollars? It's just absurd. You have a right to your opinion, but this stuff has no business being on Wikipedia. It boggles my mind that anybody would contest that I'm an anarchist. There are even newspaper articles out there which say that I'm an anarchist.Chuck0 05:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You're the one that has mentioned in some of the things you've posted on the net that you worked as a librarian for a state university. How is anyone supposed to know that you no longer do? And posting that you work for the state is not a personal attack. By the way, newspaper articles are not good enough sources for this article to assert that you're an anarchist. (About earning your living as a librarian, that's not my problem. It's not my responsibility to provide you with a living through tax dollars).
You have shown in your actions here that you are engaging in personal attacks against me. I am under no obligation to provide some anonymous coward with my recent work resume. Everybody knows that I'm an anarchist. Give it a rest and find something constructive to add to Wikipedia. Chuck0 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, everybody does not know you're an anarchist. I know you call yourself one, but I don't agree that you are. If this article states that you're an anarchist then there needs to be sources.
Well, I don't think Proudhon's an anarchist because he was a sexist, racist piece of shit, not to mention a politician. Oh, and Kropotkin was a prince. I guess I need to add fact tags on both of their articles. Oh, and Chuck, you drive on roads? <sarcasm>Well then you must not be an anarchist since anarchists walk and ride bikes.</sarcasm> Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm also an ovo-lacto vegetarian, which disqualifies me as an anarchist because we all know that anarchists are raw food vegans. Chuck0 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? I bet you even pay for your food instead of dumpstering it too huh? Well, I'm going vegan on the first of the month, but I'm not doing raw foods. Yet another reason why I'm not an anarchist. Plus I don't dumpster all my food. Even my FNB chapter stopped dumpstering because we get donations from the local co-op. We're so not anarchist. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need source saying he is an anarchist

Just because someone calls themself an "anarchist" it doesn't mean they are recognized by one in the scholarly community. So please don't remove the request for citation. If there are no sources, then the most we can do is say he's a "self-described" anarchist.

You're walking a thin line (in fact, you've already fallen off). This is ridiculous. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No it is not ridiculous. If Rothbard is held to such a high standard of requiring sources to prove that he's an anarchist (and then they're not accepted by social anarchists here when they are provided), then there needs to be some sources that say this guy is an anarchist. So far all I've seen is him referring to himself as one. I personally don't consider him an anarchist.
I think the mistake I made in this dispute is not explaining in depth why Rothbard doesn't belong on the "Anarchism in the U.S.A." page. There is a limit as to how much one of these entries can rely on citations. At some point people who understand the subject matter have to make a judgement call about how to structure each entry. In the case of the entry in question, the section about Rothbard is simply out of place. The other section about the Indian anarchist was also out of place. I had never heard of that person and was perplexed as to why it was a significant part of the page.
Rothbard may have considered himself as an anarcho-capitalist of sorts, but this is not how his peers saw him, as far as I know. Rothbard is primarily known as being an American libertarian. The U.S. anarchist movement may have talked here and there about Rothbard, but he is simply not a significant person in the history of the U.S. anarchist movement.
The best reason for removing Rothbard from this entry is that his influence, even if you grant that he has some influence, is not as large as anarchists listed at the end of the entry. Those people listed have published books, spoken at anarchist conferences, been discussed by other anarchists and so on. There is no exact citation that one can provide to demonstrate influence, so you have to rely on subject experts. The scope of the entry also tilts towards the historical movement in the U.S. and is deficient on contemporary anarchism. Chuck0 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What you say is irrelevant, because the sources contradict you. I know you think the fact that you consider yourself a 20-year anarchist and run a website makes you an authority, but it doesn't. That's not how Wikipedia works. There needs to be sources and you shouldn't deleted well-sourced material. But you take it upon yourself to delete the Rothbard section when there is a long list of sources from reputable scholars saying he is an individualist anarchist. There are a tremendous amount of sources saying he is an anarchist. Rothbard is the most popular individualist anarchist of the 20th century.
[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at your list of reputable scholars on Rothbard. Looks to me like several political reference tools are cited, which is normally good, but when it comes to anarchism these books consistently get anarchism wrong. I have the Oxford Encyclopedia of Political Thought and it has an entry on anarchism written by some right wing Libertarian. Chuck0 05:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, they do not get anarchism wrong. You do. They are the published scholars. They study anarchism in way more depth than you have. They are the authorities for Wikipedia. You're not an authority on anarchism. What you say holds no weight unless you have sources that back up what you say. If you want to say something in an article then provide sources and don't delete well-cited material.
[removed personal attack by User:Chuck0 ]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[removed unsigned personal attack]Skomorokh incite 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The burden is on you to substantiate your claims, which are simply ridiculous. Chuck0 05:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not stating in this article that you're not an anarchist. So no, there is no burden on me. The burden is on whoever asserts in this article that you're an anarchist. I don't consider you one. I know you say you're one, but I disagree that that's good enough. Anyone can claim that they're an anarchists but unless they're recognized as one by credible scholarly sources then it can't be asserted on Wikipedia that they are. And also all that fluff needs to be verified by sources as well. It needs to be deleted until sources can be provided. I don't trust it at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Your honor (talk • contribs)
Yes, the burden is on you to demonstrate your claims. You've already posted false information to this entry in an effort to use it as a personal attack against me. Wikipedia has guidelines that discourage attacking living people with postings to biographical entries. I say that I am an anarchist and I'm widely known as being an anarchist. You can argue otherwise, but you are arguing against well-sourced reality. Chuck0 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think with something as subjective as political philosophy, the person declaring themselves to be one seems to me to be enough. e.g., it would be good to find a source saying "Cher is a democrat" to put that in her article, but if you have a source with her declaring herself to be one, that would cut it in my mind. In this case, though, the whole reason Chuck's notable is for anarchism-related stuff, so one could argue that you don't need a source because it's self-evident. But then someone else could argue that it's better to be sourced than sorry, so why not find one and put it in? That's my take. On a related note, I'd suggest to all parties in the discussion to maybe take just a teensy step back to have a breather, perhaps a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Remember, if this were to turn into a big, hairy deal, it would behoove everyone to have clean record of WP:CIVIL. Not that there's any reason for this discussion to get so out of hand :) delldot | talk 06:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, like always, Chuck is responding to attack aggressively here, but I really think Your Honor is just hasrassing him. This is beyond the realm of absurd now. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not harrassment. This has nothing to do with him. It has to do with whoever puts information in this article. Any assertions about a person need to be cited. It's Wikipedia policy. If a person says he's an anarchist, that doesn't make him one. Likewise, if someone doesn't call themself an anarchist that doesn't make them not one. What makes someone an anarchist is that they actually are one. And whether they actually are one is for the scholarly sources to decide. As far as I know, Munson is not considered to be an anarchist. There probably should not even be an article on him since he's not very notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Your honor (talk • contribs)
I'm not going to dignify your trolling by responding to that. I suggest no one else does either. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a mere response. I'm asking for a citation. Unless you have a source then there is truly no point in responding. Your honor 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times calls him an "anarchist".[9] In fact, he appears first in a search on "anarchy". Can we move on now? -Will Beback · † · 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A New York Times reporter is not qualified to make that call. Please see the citations policy. And that is not all that is wrong with this article. Much of the "Activism" section is unsourced and should be deleted. We can't just take this guy's word on things. Even someone editing their own article has to abide by Wikipedia sourcing policy. Your honor 22:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is not a place to debate whether Munson "is" an anarchist, it is a place to discuss improving the article. A citation from the NYT is an improvement, and if you have other sources, please share them. Let's let the article give the cited information and the reader will make up her own mind about the truth of things. Jonathunder 23:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, the debate shouldn't be on whether he actually is an anarchist but on whether sources say he is one. But newspapers are not legitimate sources for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons says "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject." We can't use a newspaper as a source for him being an anarchist. We can use his own writings as a source for him saying that he's an anarchist, but not for a source that he actually is one. In other words we can use his own writings as a primary source but not a secondary one. So we have to say "self-described anarchist." Your honor 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As Will has said, it's time to move on. Don't keep trying to get a rise out of people. Jonathunder 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get a rise out of anybody. I'm trying to make sure that this article does not assert material that is unsourced. The only way to "move on" is to provide a reliable source that he's an anarchist or to say he's "self-described." This is the way Wikipedia works. Your honor 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times is more than sufficent of a source under Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Let it go and move on to something else. Gamaliel 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In case anybody is still paying attention and wants a scholarly source identifying me as an anarchist--I actually found a scholarly source! Here is an article about my cyber-activism: "Making the News: Anarchist Counter-Public Relations on the World Wide Web". Lynn Owens and L. Kendall Palmer. Critical Studies in Media Communication. Vol.20, no. 4, December 2003, pp. 335-361. Chuck0 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

congratulations! 'self-described' no longer! the real tragedy here, of course, is the insane amount of time spent on this issue that could have been better put towards doing other things on wikipedia. i just finished reading the article on Yerba Mate and noticed there was one citation in the whole article. i wonder if those who were so adamant on sourcing this article would be willing to apply their hightened sense of dilligence to mate? -- frymaster 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User auto-editing

Although Munson claims to no longer be editing at Wikipedia, he has repeatedly removed comments regarding his entry. Am I mistaken, or is it bad form (if not a direct violation) to edit your own entry? Also, the issue related to Munson and DC Indymedia is directly bearing on the current information contained in the entry. It is in fact true that Munson was banned from the DC Indymedia site, and that he wrote about this on his personal blog. As the blog is considered worthy of mention, as is his relationship with Indymedia, it would seem that this discussion is not "personal insults" but rather an attempt to reach a balanced assessment. If anyone has thoughts regarding subjects editing entries into resumes, rather than entries, please advise.In the Stacks 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

well, i would advise to source your statements. perhaps a link to the diff of the edit you mention? or maybe a reference to the part about being banned from dc indymedia and some explanation on how that is relevant? -- frymaster 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the referencing is all above, and as to its relevance; Munson is a contentious figure who tends to pick fights online. Without using pejoratives to describe the activity, it is worth mentioning that Munson was banned from the DC Indymedia center. He complained about it on his personal blog. As both his involvement with DC Indymedia (and his blog link) are considered relevent, then some note should be attached regarding the content of his involvement. A review of the edit history of this entry (and talk page) are sufficient to show his auto-editing. But in any case, am I correct that editing an entry on yourself is considered bad form, if not a direct violation of Wiki policy?In the Stacks 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Do I need to point out once again that In the Stacks is using Wikipedia to mount personal attacks against me? How long has he been doing this? For over a year and a half? Anybody who comes along and reads this exchange should know that In the Stacks has been harrassing me for over 4 years in a variety of forums. Take what he says with a grain of salt, because there is my side of the story.
In the Stacks is calling me a "contentious figure" in order to tarnish my reputation here on Wikipedia. What he thinks about me as a person is irrelevant to Wikipedia. His take on my involvement with DC Indymedia is also irrelevant, as would be any discussion of his relationship to various groups. This is all not related to Wikipedia and since it all involves a person's reputation, these comments are personal attacks, thus not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks.
I've removed content from this page that constitute personal attacks involving matters that are irrelevant to Wikipedia. These comments were added a while back, at a time when Wikipedia editors were less pro-active about dealing with personal attacks. If the above comments, such as the ones about DC Indymedia, were posted today, they would be removed immediately by Wikipedia editors.
What I want to know is if Wikipedia will make an effort to remove old personal attacks from talk pages. That should be a policy, because Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a proxy by people wishing to attack other people. Chuck0 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)