Kinsella rebuts Berlet, two Notable Wikipedians square off Options

[nobs]

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

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

User:Cberlet on the other hand has linked to materials that he personally authored for and published with the Southern Poverty Law Center [44][45] and furthermore he did not disclose at the time of the addition that the source he cited was his own. [Rangerdude]

Adding an entry in [Kinsella's] blog so that [Kinsella] can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia. -Willmcw 22:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Williamcw: You said, "Adding an entry in your blog so that you can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia." But, apparently, referring to baseless smears against libertarians (Hoppe) by someone (Palmer) who's made it an ongoing policy to smear this person, is the way to write an encylopedia? Encyclopedia articles should not be yet another place where campaigns of character-assasination are waged. And that holds for individuals and institutions. -- David J. Heinrich

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

Will Beback inserts David Duke in LvMI

I put in David Duke's criticism of the Center to prove that point...Point made, problem solved.

Kinsella, like Daniel Brandt was the victim of a vicious smear and tried to defend himself through Wikipedia's processes.

[Will Beback], are you saying that your personal attacks are excusable if they are in response to others made against you? Moreover, I never knew anything about you until I saw you making up stuff about me--that I had erected my own entry (untrue); that I worked for the Mises Institute (untrue)--in your first attempt to delete my entry. When I objected, you smarmily danced around and I then noticed your pattern of snide, leftist-inspired wikistalking, such as your second attempt to delete me, your utterly outrageous and repeated attempts to add a snide comment about the copyright status in one of my articles detailing my opposition to IP law [Wikibio describes Kinsella as "an American intellectual property lawyer" and is in Category:Patent attorneys]; when you did not like my edit to the Mises Institute page showing the SPLC [authored by Berlet], who had smeared the Mises Institute as being a hate group, had been criticized by others for going overboard--you "buttressed" this with a criticism by David Duke, which was a very slimy, dishonest, bad faith, and disingenuous move; and your ridiculous repressing of my entry due to a CopyVio simply because of your busybody dislike for my own website's quite standard copyright notice, in your attempt to use your power as an editor to try to push your pet GNU agenda. Outrageous. [[User:Nskinsella|NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella)]] 02:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Stephan, this isn't helpful. We're trying to resolve the dispute here, not engage in it. Words like outrageous, snide, dishonest etc etc are the problem, not the solution and I'm asking everyone here to be part of the solution. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So Berlet, Will Beback, et al can slander and defame Kinsella as being associated with a hate group (sourced to Berlet) in Wikipedia. When he responds, words he uses like outrageous, snide, and dishonest "are the problem".

ArbCom finally found an "error" on Will Beback's part, but don't follow the links from there, it's part of the coverup.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Nobs, this is the sort of thing that were probably more appropriately posted to the "Nobs 'n' Chip" thread. While this material has historical interest, we really don't need a constant stream of new threads devoted to it.

[anon1234]

Nobs, this is the sort of thing that were probably more appropriately posted to the "Nobs 'n' Chip" thread. While this material has historical interest, we really don't need a constant stream of new threads devoted to it.

I agree with this sentiment unfortunately.

[nobs]

Will Beback said

A substantial part of Rangerdude's editing career at Wikipedia has involved promoting the LVMI and denigrating the Claremont Institute, along with their respective personnel.

I will take Will Beback's characterization of RD at face value. RD appear's to be deeply knowledgeable in the feud Will Beback cited. Rangerdude was the target of ideological profiling, the equivalent of surveilling all Black males on the grounds that a certain percentage may commit violent crimes. In the sense that targeting minorities for special surveillance, Rangerdude was wikistalked before ever registering an account, having been profiled by Polirtcal Research Associates and the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "neo-confederate". This is evident in the first Finding of Fact:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Workshop#Rangerdude.27s_editing

1) Rangerdude (talk • contribs) generally edits articles which relate to Southern conservative themes often related to Texas.

An essay entitled Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence, written in the pre-Patriot Act era, discusses the problem of extremism being communicated on the internet; here's a brief extract:

Not only is this region where right wing fanatics in North America lead the "normal" portions of their lives in relative obscurity, but also where their weapons are assembled, money is raised, and right wing headquarters are located. This north-south latitude stretches all the way down through Nebraska and to Texas.

Rangerdude was targeted as a "neo-confederate" as defined by the SPLC's Intelligence Report. It was in this publication that Berlet also listed American Enterprise Institute, the Bradley Foundation, Horowitz's Center for the Study for Polular Culture, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute as well as several others, as hate groups. Anyone using these sources, or showing an affinity to these organizations has become the subject of ideological profiling in Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by nobs: