Part III -- partisan v extreme, ex post facto policy change

Fred Bauder said in the Rangerdude (RD) case,

Even a blind pig may find an acorn from time to time and Rangerdude has shown you [SlimVirgin] have made a few missteps, for example I believe you [SlimVirgin]interpret NPOV wrong when you express the view that favorable and unfavorable material ought to be "balanced" and use that as an excuse to remove well sourced material. This wrong-headed notion is not limited to you and might even be agreed to by some or even most arbitrators. It is understandable that you might commit this error. Point is, don't panic. A long record of responsible work is not going to be ignored just because you are in a mud fight with a POV pusher. You also protected a page that you were actively editing. It is not clear why, no one had removed what you had contributed, nor was protection called for by any arbitration decision, but you did it. Rangerdude would have it that a grave violation has occurred. This would be true if you were edit warring at the article and protected the article in your version, but that is not what happened.

This is in WP:AfArb/RD/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes. RD demonstrated,

Example 1: SlimVirgin changed WP:RS to support her interpretation of what count as partisan political websites [25] following a dispute at the Chip Berlet article when I [RD] cited this guideline in support of my contention that Berlet's political and editorial beliefs be so designated since they came from a partisan political source.

What was the change to support SlimVirgin's interpretation of what count as partisan political websites?; this change,

However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like [[Stormfront]] or the [[Socialist Workers' Party]]. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. [emphasis mine]

Change was made 04:04 18 August 2005. Thus SlimVirgin, acting at the behest of Chip Berlet as RD alleged, could not remove NPOV material to the Chip Berlet mainspace, as Fred Bauder found in Arbitration. So SlimVirgin rewrote WP:RS to prohibit using "political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views", i.e., Holocaust denial. Later, Namebase was delinked or delinkedspammed, or whatever the technical language is, as result of this ex post facto policy change. And the "hit piece" on Daniel Brandt was created because of the inability to remove the criticism section authored by RD in the Chip Berlet article.

(Somey @ Sun 14th January 2007, 1:56pm)
...at the time, there was no guarantee that Brandt would object so strenuously to the article... If anything, Berlet would have wanted to avoid getting Brandt involved in Wikipedia affairs...

See SlimVirgins account of the events 22:24, 14 November 2005:

....Rangerdude was arguing [464] [465] that Chip and the company he works for, Political Research Associates, should be regarded as "extremists" under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources provision, which at the time read: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in
articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party, not research organizations like Political Research Associates...

[ed. note: "like-minded" , i.e. so called "leftists". Per WP:ATT Wilcox materials support designation of Berlet and PRA as "extreme" . See also ''Racial Extremism in the Army'', MAJ Walter M. Hudson, ''The Military Law Review'', p. 7, Vol 159, (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 for qualification of Wilcox.]

This explains why no links to Namebase are allowed. SlimVirgin continued,

...During the discussion about his edits, I made the comment to Rangerdude that I felt he ought not to be editing the article and that I was thinking of taking the matter further. [472] What I meant by taking the matter further was that, if Rangerdude had continued to add criticism to the page, I was going to make Jimbo and/or the arbcom aware of the situation, because I believed that his actions looked like malice, and that could potentially have created a legal problem.