Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

(Rangerdude | talk | contributions)

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Outside view question
5 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

This is a case of an editor making personal attacks.

[edit] Description

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

Rangerdude has been making personal attacks. On talk pages and in edit summaries he is calling me a "stalker" and accusing me harassing him. He has not accused me of breaking any Wikipedia polices. My edits have never been harassing and I have never made any personal remarks about this editor. In addition, I asked to participate in mediation and he has refused. I simply request the editor to please not make personal comments as part of the editing process. -Willmcw 04:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Rangerdude's claim: The charge of "wikistalking", which doesn't violate any policies that I am aware of, is simply not true. I have compiled a list of the 203 articles that Rangerdude had contributed to as of 04:33 (UTC), Jun 15, 2005. Of those, there are 59 that we have both contributed to. Of those, Rangerdude contributed first to 27 of them, I contributed first to 19 of them, and on 13 my only editing was to the category (mostly one small recategorization effort). By comparison, my watchlist covers 2272 articles and other pages and I've made a total of over 10,000 edits Rangerdude's editing is not a big concern to me, though I do wish his personal comments would stop. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The articles which Rangerdude cites below are mostly interlinked with one another. In many cases he added a link and I followed it. All of these articles fall into three fields: American Civil War and its historians, the Neo-confederate movement, and the Houston Chronicle.

1. James M. McPherson (Civil war historian and commentator on Neo-confederates)

2. Origins of the American Civil War (Civil War related)

3. Olbers Paradox (Yes, I did arrive at this page from RD's contributions list)

4. Walker Tariff (Civil War related)

5. Ludwig von Mises Institute (Neo-confederate related)

6. Thomas DiLorenzo (Neo-confederate related)

7. Morrill Tariff (Civil War related)

8. Thomas Krannawitter (Neo-confederate related)

9. Claremont Institute (Neo-confederate related)

10. Clyde N. Wilson (Neo-confederate related)

11. The Real Lincoln (Civil war history)

12. Eric Foner (Civil war historian and commentator on Neo-confederates)

13. Black Codes (Civil War related)

14. Negrophobia (Civil War related)

15. Confederate States of America (Civil War related)

16. Taney Arrest Warrant (Civil War related)

17. Category:Clinton Administration scandals (edited while Rangerdude was arguing over undelete of Jim Robinson, a Clinton antagonist. RD had created an orphan category).

18. Houston Chronicle (Invited to participate by other editor)

19. Dan Patrick (radio host) (Chronicle-related)

20. Texans for Public Transportation (Chronicle-related)

21. Texans for True Mobility (Chronicle-related)

22. Robert Jensen (Chronicle-related)

23. Essie Mae Washington-Williams (Neo-confederate related)

24. Metrorail(Chronicle-related)

25. Category:Houston METRORail (Chronicle-related)

26. WEDGE Group (I disambiguated Bill White, an unrelated article I have edited.)

I have never seen a definition of "Wikistalking", but editing closely related articles is not the same as following an editor around to random entries. -Willmcw 22:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Edit summaries where Rangerdude calls me a "stalker"

[1] (?Robert Jensen's September 11, 2001 articles - Jensen incident was more than just "articles" - involved a widely publicized controversy. Quit making unnecessary and deconstructive stalker edits)
[2] (It's an affiliated project. Some KSEV people write for LST, but not all LST works for KSEV. Nobody likes a stalker.)
[3] (revert stalker edit re: "controversy" - def. n. " A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - not a POV term)
[4] (revert stalker deletion. Chronically biased is part of station history, add description of LST - edited by Patrick)
[5] (?Personal comments - and stalking is stalking, please stop.)
[6] (Nobody likes a stalker...)
[7] (Revert deletion of legit. material. LST is a major & newsworthy Chronicle critic. Nobody likes a stalker)

Talk pages where Rangerdude calls me a "stalker"

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

wikipedia:no personal attacks

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Uncle Ed 02:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

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

Hello. I would like to take this opportunity to respond by demonstrating that User:willmcw's allegation in this matter is both frivolous and likely a retaliatory action for my posts made earlier today in which I requested arbitration against him for prolonged and extended wiki-stalking against me over a period of several months. I intend to further demonstrate that Willmcw has indeed engaged in a demonstrable pattern of behavior that may be accurately characterized as wiki-stalking, hence my previous posts in which I stated that he was engaged in the very same. Far from being a "personal attack" as he contends, these statements were made to communicate my objection to the very practice they describe, which also happens to be the practice in which Willmcw has been engaged towards me. Given that previous less direct attempts over the past several months to communicate this objection to Willmcw have failed to produce any reconciliation in his behavior, it is further my contention that these direct statements were both necessary and justified.

[edit] Evidence of Willmcw's Wiki-Stalking

During the course of my interaction with Willmcw I have communicated repeatedly to him that I consider his behavior towards me to be harassing and generally deconstructive to the purposes of wikipedia. His behavior has nevertheless become an extended, prolonged, and recurring problem with no resolution in site. Given that he now contends my latest and final attempts to convey to him my objection to his behavior before seeking outside intervention have prompted him to accuse me of personal attacks in place of resolving the objectionable behavior, it is necessary that I demonstrate that Willmcw has indeed engaged in wiki-stalking.

Definition - wiki-stalking, or stalking, as used in the context I have described pertains to a successive and extended pattern of editing behavior in which the aforementioned editor, Willmcw, has singled out my person and the edits I make on wikipedia for personal monitoring, harassment, deconstruction, and agitation over an extended period of time. Stalking consists of closely monitoring and following an individual editor's editing history to a degree that exceeds reasonable and ordinary use, and in doing so specifically targetting the edits of that editor for subsequent changes premised not on the subject matter of the articles in question but rather due to the editor who made them. Stalking of this type is a type of behavior that may be reasonably classified as trolling. It is also of poor etiquette and fosters incivility by subjecting the stalked editor to undue harassment and a level of cross-scrutiny above and beyond that which would be experienced through normal, everyday editing practices.

Background I first joined wikipedia approximately 6 months ago. In short order after joining I first encountered Willmcw on a small number of articles. Our first significant exchange happened on the article neo-confederate. Though heated at times this exchange produced eventual agreement and a working article. In short order after this exchange, Willmcw began appearing to make an unusually high number of followup edits on dozens of unrelated articles where I had contributed. The frequency and degree of our encounters soon exceeded what could reasonably be expected from chance encounters, and also ranged into topic areas far outside of Willmcw's normal areas of expertise, interest, or editing frequency. In summary, I may cite some 40 or more different articles where I have made an edit or contribution of some form that have immediately precipitated Willmcw's arrival at the said articles to make subsequent edits

[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]

[edit] Notable Cases of Stalking

1. James M. McPherson - On 2/1/01 I began developing this article through multiple factual additions and reorganizations. Willmcw followed me here after our discussions on neo-confederate towards the end of January and began deconstructing my additions around February 6th through 15th. His first change was to remove an entire summary paragraph the provided a brief general statement of materials documented in detail over the course of subsequent paragraphs.[52] I reverted his edits, noting that the summary items were detailed in subsequent paragraphs. Willmcw responded by adding snidely worded and unprofessional qualifiers to the summaries, alleging specific charges had been made "by unnamed critics" that were indeed mentioned in the details and links.[53] From then until late February I continued developing this article, adding several links in total. Throughout this period Willmcw engaged in multiple petty tit-for-tat style edits, deconstructive deletions, and awkward textual rearrangements while contributing very little new or pertinent information to the article in general. The article reached a form resembling its current one on February 15th. As new material about the subject of the article was published, I made subsequent additions on May 30th. Willmcw followed me back on May 31st, resuming multiple tit-for-tat and deconstructive editing rearrangements with little benefit or new material to the article. These edits in general tended to convey a POV that reflected favorably upon the political left/liberalism, such as changing a description of The Nation magazine from "magazine" to the more professional and academic-sounding "journal"[54] and resuming the previously resolved issue of a general summary sentence followed by specific details.

2. Origins of the American Civil War - I began work on this article along with some other editors before I met Willmcw at the neo-confederate article. About the same day he followed me to James M. McPherson, willmcw, who had never before shown an interest in this article, began making several edits to it [55]. Though not generally deconstructive as with the McPherson edits, this was one of several articles Willmcw followed me to at approximately the same time he began monitoring my edits across the board (circa weeks of February 6-15th).

3. Olbers Paradox - on February 10th I made an addition and factual clarification to this article on an obscure topic of astronomy. Willmcw, who previously had expressed no interest in this or any related subject, arrived the following day to make tit-for-tat changes to my additions and my additions alone.[56] The changes he made included unneccessary and largely pointless linguistic changes (e.g. "wrote" to "observed") and the unexplained removal of a summary statement for the scientific implications of Poe's theory. Though a relatively minor dispute, the law of probability dictates that the only way Willmcw could've stumbled across this article to make non-pressing edits to my additions and my additions alone the day after I added them is if he was intentionally monitoring and stalking my contributions.

4. Walker Tariff - Again, I edited this article on February 8th and again Willmcw showed up to make changes - this time minor - a few days later.[57] The only statistically probable way he could've "happened" upon this obscure article when he did, and in accordance with his arrival on the other aforementioned articles I had edited, many of them obscure, at the same moment is if he was stalking my editing history.

5. Ludwig von Mises Institute - same thing, same timeframe.[58]

6. Thomas DiLorenzo - same thing, same timeframe. This time he removed some pertinent links I added without significant specification. The purpose of removing and consolidating the links in general seemed to be directed at limiting or restricting their inclusion - not unsurprising as this user's political POV's differ with the links' contents. [59]

7. Morrill Tariff - same thing, same timeframe.[60] Willmcw quickly became involved in an extended discussion on this article as well, aimed primarily at deconstructing my edits and giving a voice of support to changes made by another editor who was at the time attempting to insert his own POV into the article's interpretive material. This is one of the first of many cases where Willmcw has mysteriously "arrived" in the middle of a disagreement between myself and another editor, only to advocate the position of the other editor. Again the topic was obscure and completely unrelated to any of Willmcw's usual areas of interest. He followed me there and started throwing fuel to the flames of a pending dispute, plain and simple. The edits he made ranged from unnecessary tit-for-tat word rearrangements [61] to POV advancement and unreasonable source citation requests. The article itself is about an obscure 19th century historical topic and while developing it earlier, I had added a historical quotation by Charles Dickens - a notable commentator of the period for self-evident reasons - that was widely published in the day although neither it, nor the tariff law it talks about, are well known today. Willmcw began deconstructing and removing this quotation without justification (though he left a quotation I added by Karl Marx, another notable period commentator, who took the opposite POV of Dickens, and evidently same POV of the other editor Willmcw was lending his support to) while demanding extraordinary documentation to restore the Dickens quote.[62] The original quote was in an English newspaper article that I have access to but that is not online. Several secondary sources that reproduce it in part are online and I offered them, though none satisfied Willmcw and were dismissed as partisan sources for POV reasons. In turn I provided the full citation of the original newspaper article including title, date, publication etc. which he was reluctant to accept. Several more tit-for-tat and deconstructive edits and extraordinary sourcing demands by Willmcw ensued, all generally aimed at diminishing the amount of the Dickens quote contained and/or removing it entirely e.g. [63], including in spite of sourcing. Again his presence at this article was precipitated by no reason other than the fact I was editing it, and his edits made to it once he arrived were almost entirely dedicated to either dismantling my work or supporting the other editor involved in a disagreement over its contents.

8. Thomas Krannawitter - I created this stub on February 14, willmcw arrived moments later to classify it as a biography.[64] Again, this edit isn't objectionable in itself like some of the other ones that were intentionally deconstructive but the only way for Willmcw to have even known about this article to come to it was by wiki-stalking my editing contributions.

9. Claremont Institute - same timeframe as above on February 14.[65] Again, minor edits but conclusive proof willmcw is wiki-stalking my contributions.

10. Clyde N. Wilson - same as Kranawitter article, [66] more evidence of wiki-stalking my user contributions page.

11. The Real Lincoln - same as Kranawitter.[67] Minor edit made immediately following mine, evidencing he's wiki-stalking my user contributions page. It should be noted that this edit was the addition of the "controversial books" category - a category that is very arguably POV in its own right, and appears to have been added here to denigrate this particular book.

12. Eric Foner - this case was somewhat similar to the McPherson case. I had edited the Foner article, making several additions, back in January sometime before I'd ever met Willmcw. He showed up here and began deconstructing my edits on February 15th - the same week he started popping up on all the other articles I had edited. [68] In this case he pressed me to source contributions to the article that had been made by other editors and generally attempted to suppress or diminish the article's already exceedingly brief mention of Foner's well known and publicly admitted marxist political affiliations. That willmcw showed up here at the time he did again indicates he was wiki-stalking my user contributions, this time going back to things I had added a month earlier.

13. Black Codes - Just before I signed up for wikipedia I extensively sourced and developed this article from a small stub to a thoroughly documented and specific article containing multiple specific statute descriptions, timelines, and a delineation of their development in the United States. I added a few things to it as well after joining. Around February 15th Willmcw, again wiki-stalking my editing contributions, arrived at this article and actively attempted to agitate for the deconstruction of the extensive work I had done. He began this effort by attempting to recruit another editor who had previously worked on this article into a dispute with my edits, misrepresenting them through out of context quotations in the process [69]. When that editor did not bite he began the work himself on a related article I had been developing (Negrophobia) plus the usual tit-for-tat edits on the Black Codes article. [70] It should be noted at this point I also stated one of my first vocal objections with his editing behavior by noting in the description page that I was adding more material in order to forestall his "planned deconstruction" of my work as he had been doing on so many other articles.

14. Negrophobia - This was an article I had also developed before joining with a username, which Willmcw again followed through his wiki-stalking of my editor contributions. He first requested sources, which I quickly provided (the original edits had been made before I was accustomed to wikipedia's sourcing methods). On February 16th he began deconstructing my additions[71] premised around an awkward and unusual semantical concept ("negrophobia" is a term used by historians to describe pre-civil war white racism against african americans and Willmcw was insisting that 19th century original source documents showing pre-civil war white racism couldn't be used to describe "negrophobia" since they didn't use the modern historian's word "negrophobia" themselves, e.g. [72]). The entire exercise was counterproductive and aimed primarily and dismantling the extensive contributions I was making to the article. His sourcing "requests" reached excessive lengths so as to border on absurdity, including posts that essentially amounted to demands that I provide him with a private historical etymology of the word "negrophobia" as used by historians itself.[73] I got a strong feeling that the tactic being used here was to tire me with excessive and impractical demands so that I would stop his deconstructive edits, which essentially amounted to deleting material additions and historical quotes I had added to the article outright and in large segments at a time.

15. Confederate States of America - this is a historical article about the government of the CSA. Back around January 28th I added a factual reference to their government's foreign diplomacy involving the reciept of diplomatic recognition from the country of Saxe Coburg and Gotha. This information was discussed when the addition was made and fully documented in historical records to the other editors here on the talk page at the time I added it.[74] In early March another editor came along and, unaware of the January 28th discussion, sourcing, and addition of the material on the talk page link above, deleted it. The information was restored with a note to see the talk page. The information had already been established, accepted, and settled and the removal had apparently been a mistake. Then willmcw showed up - again after seeing that I was the one restoring the information. He immediately lent his support to the editor who was mistakenly removing the information, causing me to refer him to the talk page as well. At that point he shifted strategies and began denigrating the nationhood status of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha itself, to support the contention that it wasn't a true act of diplomacy.[75] This produced a prolonged, tedious, and wholly unnecessary diversion in which I had to demonstrate to willmcw's excessively high demands that he was just plain wrong (all along he could've obtained the exact same information by simply clicking on wikipedia's own SCG article, which I suggested he do but which he evidently declined). Once again he wiki-stalked me here, intentionally picked a bone over an innocuous and fully supported edit I made, and attempted to justify its deconstruction and removal by trying to make me reprove and redemonstrate that which was already plainly and thoroughly sourced on the page itself.

16. Taney Arrest Warrant - I developed this article some on May 18th after finding a stronger source for information than it contained than the one being used previously (the new source I added was a published article by a well known author & the old was a cluttery usenet thread containing some of the same info the published article had repeated in far more polished form). The appropriateness of using the article over a usenet post was obvious, so I substituted it in the links. Sure enough, Willmcw showed up a few days later to restore the old usenet post with little reason beyond the fact that I'm the one who made the edit.[76] Once again, this is an obscure wikipedia article on a highly specialized subject. Willmcw found it by wiki-stalking my editor contributions page.

17. Bill Clinton scandals category - On April 18th I developed a category to consolidate and facilitate navigation of scandals in the Clinton administration. About a week later Willmcw showed up and rearranged the category designations with little practical contribution to wikipedia, but a distinct change nonetheless that was precipitated by his continued following of me through my editor contributions page. See [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]

18. Houston Chronicle - On May 12th I added a brief reference to a boycott of this newspaper that was announced a couple days earlier by the Republican Party. I had previously done work on this article on other areas that had surprisingly escaped Willmcw's deconstructionist attention. On May 24th he showed up and immediately began massive deletions and revisions to the article, primarily aimed at removing content I had added or changing the wordings around in ways that intentionally diminished, belittled, or understated the information in sections I had written.[87] Among his more notable deconstructions was a major editing of the paragraph I added on the 12th about the newly announced boycott. This paragraph was fully sourced and accurate to the event it described, however Willmcw misread the link I added describing it then transposed his misconstruction into the text in a way that severely diminished the scope of the boycott (he attributed it to the action of a minor committee within the Republican Party rather than the Republican Party as a whole and persisted in advancing this faulty and diminished version through several posts until I explained and showed him in detail how he was being inaccurate). Also ncluded among his edits were the outright deletions of external links that had extensive information on the Houston Chronicle controversies but did not meet Willmcw's political POV's or unusually crafted and often arbitrary editing stipulations. When I restored the links with extensive notes on where to find the pertinent material on them he continued his deletions [88] and at times added POV and pejorative qualifier descriptions about them and other phrases. He also engaged in his usual tit-for-tat edits and removal of paragraphs etc., while adding virtually nothing new or constructive of his own to the article. Instead the whole of his work seemed - as usual - aimed at deconstructing everything I had added to the greatest extent he could get away with. Unfortunately the Chronicle dispute has extended to the present. It is currently under mediation involving another editor who differs on some of the content with me. Characteristic of his involvement in every other article where I've had similar content differences, Willmcw has also offered his full support to espousing the POV of the other editor against me. It should also be noted that during the current mediation Willmcw engaged in other improprieties that will be discussed in greater detail below.

19. Dan Patrick (radio host) - I created this article as a stub on May 27th. Willmcw arrived within approximately half an hour of its creation to begin edits.[89] As with some of the other cases, they were mostly minor and without objection but the timing and presence of Willmcw on this article indicate once again that he is following me from my editor contributions page.

20. Texans for Public Transportation - another article stub I created on June 2. Willmcw arrived a day later to edit - once again following me.

21. Texans for True Mobility - a stub I created on May 26th. Willmcw arrives on May 27th to edit - makes a minor non-controversial category change, but further proof that he is wiki-stalking from my editor contributions page. [90]

22. Robert Jensen - stub I created on June 14, Willmcw arrives on talk page on same day, advocates position of another editor who wanted to change the content I included - more evidence of wiki-stalking.

23. Essie Mae Washington-Williams - Yet another obscure article I made additions to on March 14th. Willmcw showed up on March 22nd.[91] Once again, the only way he could've done this is by wiki-stalking my editor contributions page.

24. Metrorail - I added material on June 3rd, willmcw arrives moments later and deletes multiple legitimate categories.[92] Another minor change, but also more proof he's working off my editor contributions page.

25. Category:Houston METRORail - I created this category on June 3rd, willmcw arrived moments later to reorganize it with other category placements.[93] Again the change is minor, but proves he's working off my editor contributions page.

26. WEDGE Group - I created this article stub on a corporation of virtually no relation to anything willmcw and I have edited in common on June 17th. Sure enough, willmcw arrived 2 days later to make a minor link fix[94] - proves yet again that he's following my editor contributions page.

27. Council on American-Islamic Relations talk page - Upon seeing a RfC for this page regarding a current editing dispute I visited its talk page and posted a comment on June 21st on how a similar situation on the neo-confederate article was resolved to its current form. Though this comment pertained to a solution reached on another article we had both edited, its content had absolutely no bearing on anything of interest to Willmcw prior to my arrival there. Sure enough, Willmcw showed up the very same day and attempted to refight the dispute on the other article, relying upon an incorrect portrayal of events there at that.[95] As usual, Willmcw had previously shown absolutely no interest in the CAIR article. The only way he could've found and responded to my comment is by intentionally stalking me there.

28. Justice at the Gate - I created this page on June 18th, Willmcw arrived on June 23rd to recategorize it.[96] Further evidence of wiki-stalking by him.

29. Rick Perry - I edited this page on June 23rd to include a current event about Perry, the governor of Texas. Willmcw stalked me here on June 26th.[97] His edit was minor in this case (fixing a photo format) but the fact he happened upon this article to edit immediately after I had done so evidences further stalking.

30. DeBow's Review - In April another editor created a less developed stub of this article about a historical magazine under De Bow's Review, unaware of the existing article. I redirected the stub to the more established article on July 1st to rectify this problem. The small amount of factual material contained in the stub was already present in the established article and the remainder contained unsourced POV speculation that the stub's author had deemed to be "irony," thus I saw insufficient need to merge the two with anything beyond a simple redirect. Willmcw stalked me to this article on July 2nd [98] where he subsequently attempted to insert the unsourced POV "irony" sentences from the redirected stub as well as multiple unnecessary tit-for-tat word rearrangements that are characteristic of many of Willmcw's stalker cases yet do little to nothing for the article itself. Once again, the only way Willmcw could have "happened upon" this obscure article on a subject completely foreign to his common areas of interest less than a day after my edit was by stalking me here through my user contributions page.

31. James Dunwoody Brownson DeBow - Related to stalker incident #30 described above. I moved a biographical paragraph from the redirected DeBow's Review stub about JDB DeBow (the editor of DeBow's Review) into the existing separate article about him after Willmcw attempted to reinsert it into the DeBow's Review article. Willmcw immediately stalked me there [99] and commenced to tit-for-tat rearrangements of the very same paragraph he was repeatedly trying to insert into the DeBow's Review article, apparently for little other reason than the fact that I was the one who placed it there. In addition to stalking, this behavior is suggestive of an unhealthy obsessive compulsive need he has to make edits to my work on wikipedia simply because I'm the one who posted it.

32. Tariff of 1842 - This is another article on an obscure trade law topic that is a work in progress for me. I am currently in the process of developing it and on July 1st I wrote some new descriptive paragraphs to this end. Willmcw stalked me to this article yet again on July 2nd [100] for no other reason than the fact that I am the one editing it. This topic is too obscure for him to have happened on by chance and is largely foreign to his areas of interest, thus the only way he could've found it was by following me there.

33. Claremont Institute - Part II on this same article. I developed this article substantially on July 1st by adding extensively sourced material, quotations, and formatting. Willmcw arrived during his July 2nd stalking wave and began immediately deconstructing virtually every single edit I made. The majority of his edits were clearly pushing a POV, and contained virtually nothing constructive towards building or bettering this article. A major focus of his POV edits was to diminish and deconstruct the section on controversies the Claremont Institute had been involved in. This activity consisted of removing and diminishing virtually all references to Claremont's controversies except those involving the Ludwig von Mises Institute alone.[101] His object in doing so was also to facilitate his insertion of a blatantly POV pejorative description of the Von Mises Institute.[102] I removed this pejorative several times, directing him repeatedly to WP:NPOV yet he has continued to reinsert it. In an edit that he described as a simple movement of existing text to a different section, Willmcw also deleted specific material regarding the Claremont Institute's statements on Robert Bork and diminished the discussion of Bork to a brief 5-word afterthought - again for the purpose of emphasizing only Von Mises Institute critics.[103] To further facilitate his attempt to group all critics of Claremont into the Ludwig von Mises Institute alone, Willmcw also deleted a published and sourced criticism of Claremont by Derek Copold, a critic not affiliated with the Von Mises Institute. The Copold source had been a part of the article since its creation. When I restored this deletion, noting it was unjustified, Willmcw first began mischaracterizing Copold as a "blogger" (the sourced article by Copold was in a print publication put out several years before blogging even came into the mainstream) then attempted to remove the source entirely. I attempted to address this with him on the talk page, in which he responded with ad hominem dismissals of the source and even a personal attack allegation against me in the description line where he implied without any substantiation or reason that I was Copold! [104] Such behavior is clearly harassing and deconstructive to wikipedia.

34. List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations/William H. Herndon - Willmcw stalked an edit I made to fix a broken link on these two articles for a dab.[105] The articles were yet again far too obscure for him to have happened upon by chance, proving he is still stalking.

35. Abraham Lincoln - On July 4 an anonymous ISP editor added a mid-article sentence containing duplicate information already in the article and an unsourced anonymous assertion. I removed this edit as part of a routine maintenence of the article. [106] A few hours later Willmcw stalked me there, reinserting a more specific and sourced version of the previously inappropriate ISP addition. Evidencing that he made this edit for no other purpose than the fact that I had done the previous maintenence, he labelled his addition "add back prematurely removed fact."[107]

36. Border states (Civil War) - On July 4th I made a factual addition to this article about the division of New Mexico territory into Union and Confederate halves during the Civil War. Shortly afterwards, another editor added factually erronious material to this description after finding an unsourced personal website that contained the same error he repeated. I corrected the errors and posted an original source and description correction on the talk page that in any reasonable circumstances should've settled it. [108] A few hours passed by and Willmcw yet again stalked me to this page. Without stating any reason for doing so, he immediately reverted my sourced correction and restored the factual error simply because I'm the one who corrected it.[109]

37. John Baylor - I created this stub on July 5th. Willmcw stalked me to it only a few hours later. [110] As usual, the topic of the article was obscure and could only have been found by him stalking me.

38. Arizona Territory (CSA) - I edited this page on July 5th. Later that day Willmcw stalked me to it to post routine questions on its talk page. [111] While a minor change, it is further evidence that he is following my user contributions yet again. It should be noted that the multiple minor followup edits of this sort where Willmcw has stalked me often resemble the stalking edits in "the Recycling Troll" case precedent, where the user of that name was blocked after following another editor for the purpose of making minor and inconsequential edits that were nevertheless deemed to be harassing due to their stalking element.[112]

39. Ken Masugi - Willmcw followed me here on July 2nd during his 9+ article stalking wave around July 4th weekend 2005.[113] The edit was inconsequential much like the "Recycling Troll" case's incidents, but clearly stalking and therefore disruptive.

40. Southern Partisan - On July 23rd I followed a link to this article and immediately noticed it was in need of both a major cleanup and an NPOV overhaul and did so. Willmcw stalked me to it later the same day [114] where he subsequently made multiple additions to the article, all aimed at disparaging the magazine itself with allegations that are favorable to his personal political POV. More evidence of wiki-stalking.

[edit] Evidence of other related improprieties by Willmcw

Another related impropriety to this dispute is worth mentioning as it involves a current article mediation on the Houston Chronicle page where I had communicated my objections to Willmcw's long pattern of harassing behavior towards me as exhibited through his extensive wiki-stalking of my edits over the past 5 months. This mediation involves a disagreement over content between myself and another editor (Katefan) within the Houston Chronicle article. When mediation was initiated, User:MacGyverMagic volunteered for the job and contacted myself and Katefan to arrange for the process. As noted above, Willmcw had tracked me to this article and as the disagreement with Katefan emerged, he remained present on its talk page generally espousing her side on disputed matters and agitating with a pattern of edits similar to those noted above.

When mediation was offered the question of who should participate arose. Knowing Willmcw's wiki-stalking of me and general bias against my edits on other articles and hoping that some sort of discussion over the differences I had with Katefan could be achieved, I specifically informed the mediator that I had an unpleasant history with Willmcw and requested that the mediation between myself and Katefan be kept separate from mediation with other editors, including Willmcw. I believed that his inclusion in the main mediation section between myself and Katefan would lead to a similar pattern of agitation and deconstructive edits I had experienced from Willmcw previously, thus producing results that were counterproductive to the mediation as a whole. I described this concern at length here [115] to the mediator and as a response it was decided that the mediation page would be conducted in two separated sections. The first would be open to only myself and katefan - the main two participants in the disagreement - and focus on resolving our differences. The second section would be open to all other editors who wished to participate, including Willmcw. This, I had hoped, would prevent the aforementioned problems.

The mediation began in a generally constructive manner with both myself and Katefan explaining our positions in great detail in the section that was explicitly designated for participation by only the two of us and the mediator. On June 14th Willmcw arrived and began adding comments to the second section of the mediation that largely resemble his RfC complaint here (he basically accused me of making "personal attacks" on him after I conveyed a message on another article to him that I objected to his stalking of me in the patterns evidenced above). I responded at the time that the dispute over his stalking behavior was not germane to the mediation itself [116] then asked him to discuss it in a more appropriate place and to cease from doing it as well. He responded several times by pressing the issue.

Later that day Willmcw unilaterally decided that he should also be a participant in the closed mediation section that was specifically designated for myself and Katefan alone with instructions for no other editors to post. Acting without any authorization, Willmcw added a section for himself and his own extensive comments into this closed mediation and modified the mediation header to include himself in addition to the two of us.[117] Upon discovering this I made note that it was an unauthorized activity and restored the original mediation's formatting by moving Willmcw's additions to the designated secondary mediation section. He immediately reverted this to once again place himself in the closed section.[118] I have again restored the original formatting and subsequently posted notes on the mediation pages and to the mediator informing them of this highly inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, given our extensive and unpleasant history and given the general nature of Willmcw's involvement in this dispute and others, I may only conclude that the purpose of this action was more agitation directed towards me for the purpose of inflaming an already delicate and heavily contested rift on the Houston Chronicle article.

[edit] Solutions

As I noted in a recent post on my talk page, I believe the best solution to this ongoing and recurring problem would be for the two of us to minimize our direct interaction with each other on wikipedia. This solution is consistent with my desire that he cease and desist his wiki-stalking and seems to be the only means of ensuring civility. I am already content to pursue this route, given that my repeated and extensive attempts to communicate my objections with his editing practices against me to him have produced no result whether communicated politely, as I did for the first several months of our encounters, or in blunt and direct terms, as I had conveyed in the messages that Willmcw now misportrays as if they were some sort of unprovoked namecalling attack. Whether Willmcw desires a peaceful solution or not is ultimately up to him though, and right now the only solution I can see would be for us to go our separate ways and steer clear of each other wherever possible. Rangerdude 09:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on claimed similarities between stalked page edits

The claim by Willmcw found at the header of this page - namely that each of the articles where Willmcw showed up shortly after my edits were made fall under three common categories - is a severe stretch by every sense of the word. His "list" where he purports all the articles to fit into 3 fields is a severe stretch by any sense of the word. It label such items as the Claremont Institute (a neo conservative thinktank), Thomas Krannawitter (an official at the Claremont Institute) and Essie Mae Washington-Williams (the african american daughter of Strom Thurmond) as "neo-confederate" when any such link to the purported category is so far removed from that category as to render the claim absurd. In a similar fashion, he labels the Walker Tariff of 1846 as "civil war" even though it preceded the war by some 15 years, was replaced by another tariff some 4 years before the war, and does not mention anything about the war in its article text. He also tosses in several general history articles such as Black Codes and Negrophobia - which pertain to decades upon decades of US history before and after the civil war, only touching upon it briefly.

It is even difficult to believe his assertions on the articles that fall beyond Willmcw's 3 allegedly common "fields." The Clinton Administration Scandals category edits, for example, are alleged to have been discovered through the Jim Robinson article, as Robinson was a critic of Clinton however this is similarly trying as (1) the Robinson article said very little about his criticism of Clinton, and (2) critics of Clinton number in the millions. And so it is with so many of his stalker edits. They are not in fact similar category edits surrounding a similar topic but rather rationalizations developed after the fact to connect the various topics he stalked me to by extreme multi-degree separations, purportedly connecting each. By that same reasoning, edits to an article on George W. Bush are also "civil war related" because he occupies the same office Abe Lincoln once did and they're "neo-confederate related" because Ed Sebesta has called him one.

It's also of interesting note that two of the three purported "fields" of common topic - the Houston Chronicle and Civil War history - were arrived at by willmcw after my participation began there following our first encounter at the neo-confederate article. So not only did he follow me from edited page to edited page, often attempting to dismantle my work on each - he even followed me to two new "fields" of my interest where he had previously shown absolutely no inclination to edit on his own! Please note that wikipedia does not have features that permit a user to monitor edits made to articles with extremely tangential "6 degrees of separation" links to a common topic of interest. It does, however, permit users to watch the editor contributions page of other editors and follow them there, which Willmcw plainly did on dozens upon dozens of cases, among them the ones I have documented, evidenced, and detailed above. Rangerdude 02:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable Policies and Guidelines

Wikipedia:Assume good faith - stalking behavior described above constitutes a breach of the good faith assumption
Wikipedia:Civility - stalking behavior described above is personal harassment
WP:POINT - stalking is disruptive to Wikipedia per precedent [119]

[edit] Applicable Precedents

Case with "The Recycling Troll" (March 2005). In this case User:The Recycling Troll (TRT) was accused of stalking User:RickK. The stalking behavior consisted of TRT going to articles "last edited by Wikipedia administrator RickK and make minor changes--normally grammatical adjustments or wikilinking existing words and phrases." (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling_Troll) Following an arbitration process over TRT's wiki-stalking and other allegations of his being a sockpupet or banned repeat user, intervention was finally sought and obtained from Jimbo Wales. Following the arbitration request Wales permanently blocked TRT, citing as a reason that "Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK" [120].

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

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

Rangerdude is gaming the system. All volunteers at Wikipedia must agree that their donated work will be "edited mercilessly", although some apparently expect an exemption from this. Ranger is demanding that Will not edit his contributions, and then bullying him for refusing.

Ranger should stop doing this, or be asked to take a week (or more) off from Wikipedia.

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

Uncle Ed 02:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view question

Question regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Willmwc refers to the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a "Neo-confederate related" field. Not knowing what "neo-confederate" is, nor if there is a wiki Category:Neo-confederate exists, perhaps further explaination is in order to this reference. Thank you. nobs 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Meantime, there's Neo-confederate. The Mises Institute has been called "neo-confederate" by two sources. -Willmcw 23:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

PS This RFC is not active- if you have any questions for me it would be better if you asked them on my talk page or the relevant article page. Thanks -Willmcw 23:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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

Case seems pretty clearcut; it must have taken hours to assembly this type of work[121]. I myself encountered such activity as this [122] when I was a newbie on the Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1 page [123], where the Archived reference material had repeatedly be reworked to where User:Willmcw reverted his own signature, then some anonymous poster assumed my personal name (Rob) that a mediator there used onetime, and applied to all User:Willmcw postings on that page. The intent was clear, CYA & confuse the discussion, especially since User:Willmcw/(Rob) demonstrated no real interest in the facts under discussion. And that's not half the story. As a newbie, I was amazed such conduct was possible among Wiki Administrators, and still am. Thank you. Nobs01 18:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, could you please provide the "diffs" for the edits you are referring to? I checked and I don't see where I reverted my signature or any similar edits on Talk:Russell Tribunal, and I've never edited the archives. You may be confusing me with another editor. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing you provide them as well. Nice to see there are so many "Robs" in the house. As for the discussions on the talk pages to which you provided links, nothing seems amiss. Methinks you are suffering from a bit of reading comprehension difficulties. -Rob 20:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed Russell Tribunal Archives at [124] & [125]. At the time of the discussion, I made a post to the effect that it was my belief that there were only three participants in that ongoing discussion. The posting, as reconstructed from memory had three clauses, with (about) three words each, and should have read something like this:

"It's my blief, that this discussion, consists of 3 people"

Subsequent review conducted over this past weekend found no such posting. Also, at the time of that discussion, I became convinced that a user of sufficient skill could make revisions to a wikipage without it being reflected in the history, and thus being a newbie, I surmised that wiki history pages could not be relied upon as a factual basis for a future arguement. There are possibly two reasons for this: (1) a user of sufficient technical skill can make an alteration, or (2) I'm an idiot and don't understand how these things work.

On a personal note, I have no interest whatsoever in getting into personal disputes with other users. I seek to contribute, and try to focus 99.9% of my attention on the substance of articles. I avoid POV/NPOV arguements like the plague, cause experience teaches me that when another user claims POV or lacks NPOV, it's usually the first sign their arguement has ran out of gas. Either an arguements stands on its own, and doesn't need endless repetition, or very often it can't be defended so it's just easier to assault someone else's work. But most of all experience teaches me that I can be wrong. Nobs01 20:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that evaluation Nobs. So to recap, is it correct to say that this comment:

I myself encountered such activity as this [126] when I was a newbie on the Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1 page [127], where the Archived reference material had repeatedly be reworked to where User:Willmcw reverted his own signature, then some anonymous poster assumed my personal name (Rob) that a mediator there used onetime, and applied to all User:Willmcw postings on that page. The intent was clear, CYA & confuse the discussion, especially since User:Willmcw/(Rob) demonstrated no real interest in the facts under discussion.

is "no longer operative"? -Willmcw 20:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

partially yes. Nobs01 21:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok....which part? -Willmcw 21:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Final clarification: It is my impression that Willmcw & Anon-Rob are the same user, however I could be wrong. I have (1) no need to pursue it, I have (2) no wish to pursue it, I have (3) no way to pursue it, and hopefully now, I have (4) no reason to pursue it.Nobs01 21:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That information can be determined by a Wikipedia:Developer. If you feel it is significant enough to concern his Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw, then it should be raised. ~~~~ 18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "Anon-Rob" is, but -Rob is not Willmcw. You'll both note that -Rob (that's me) has been editing that article months before either Nobs, Nobs01 or Willmcw made their first edit there (see old archives of Talk page). I believe the confusion stems from my re-signing a few of my latter edits on the discussion page with my handle -Rob per another editors request. -Rob 18:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect that it won't come up again. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys still looking for Mediation? If so, let me know. Andre (talk) 20:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)