Talk:Free Republic/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Progress so far

I have restored the stub as per our agreement.

I would ask involved editors to assess the article in the Talk:Free_Republic/Sandbox and express their opinion (in a short paragraph) on the quality of the article, balance, and NPOV language. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood, Jossi. But let's keep that December 20 deadline in mind. The clock is ticking and in my professional life away from Wikipedia, I have never missed a deadline.
Gentlemen, this removed the criticism from the article lead and reduced C&C to 25% or less of the overall size of the article, making it similar to the DU and Kos articles. The Robinson quotations have been removed. They could be reinserted in some way that does not label them as "controversial," but it should be understood by the editors that they would engender criticism from reasonable people, and that they would count toward the 25% limit. According to the standards established by the DU and Kos articles, it's a balanced article without violations of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and without any unnecessary inflammatory language. The LA Times lawsuit and the efforts to skew online polls are clearly controversial and belong in that section. I've done my best to treat FR in exactly the same way that DU and Kos have been treated. -- BryanFromPalatine 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, deadlines are somewhat flexible, Brian, and we are all volunteers editing an encyclopedia. Can you provide a diff for the version you are referring to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I see now that you've reverted the sandbox version as well. The version prior to your revert is what I was talking about. [1] The preceding link provides that version. (1) As it now stands in the sandbox, the article is 100% C&C which is unlike DU and Kos, and therefore unacceptable. (2) The "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections are unacceptable as violations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight on their own merits. This is a separate and independently sufficient objection, entirely apart from the 100% C&C concern. There's more than enough C&C material remaining in the article if we leave out those three paragraphs. (3) The article lead once again contains abundant C&C, which even FAAFA conceded was inappropriate, and is unlike DU and Kos; therefore it is also unacceptable. -- BryanFromPalatine 17:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please state below your agreement or disagreement with this assessment of the current sandbox version. The word "Agree" or "Disagree" plus your signature will suffice.
Jossi, how long are you going to keep extending deadlines? -- BryanFromPalatine 17:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I though that I was acting as the mediator, but it seems that you have overtaken that role, making proposals, changing the parameters for the engagement, etc. If editors want my involvement, then I would be happy to continue. Otherwise, you can go back to the previous situation before I was invited to mediate. As for the deadlines, as said before, we need to be somewhat flexible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion of the article: The lead paragraph contains much too much negative material. The non-criticism parts of the article have not been created to any significant extent. I think the sections on controversial aspects and members can be pared down (summarized) if a consensus amongst participating editors is reached.
As an aside, I am strongly against the inclusion of remarks by the organization's founder unless they can be show be in some way significantly related to the organization's activities or policies. I would compare the situation here to that Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is a redoubtable flaming/raging socialist/communist who espouses some extreme political opinions. That notwithstanding, he is also apparently a brilliant linguistics expert who has no doubt come up with brilliant theories in that field. If an article was written about one of his theories of linguistics, even if it was about political linguistics, I still wouldn't expect to see the article contaminated by a random off-topic sampling of his extremist political opinions. I'd only want his opinions included that were clearly shown to be directly impacting/impacted by that theory. Lawyer2b 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I support inclusion of the Robinson remarks. I oppose the negative stuff in the first two paragraphs since Democratic Underground isn't getting that treatment. Fair is fair. The cyber stalking, the Bahrain stuff and the death threats don't belong here either. Chad Castanaga is even worse. Jossi, the person who deserves criticism here is not Bryan. He has been pushy. That's the worst thing I can say about him. But the DU members here (BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A.) have been really irresponsible. They asked for mediation, they agreed to your terms, and they were assigned to work on the first half of the article. Instead, they starting picking fights about the second half of the article, sticking their noses in where they don't belong, and making sure the lead parapgraphs look like they were written by somebody from DU. Meanwhile the first half of the article that they were assigned to work on sits empty. And who gets scolded? Not BenBurch. Not F.A.A.F.A. Jossi, involvement of a mediator is very important and we need you to continue looking in on this project. But the blame for any failure of the process doesn't belong to Bryan. ArlingtonTX 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If the comment I made was taken as criticizing Bryan, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was simply stating that my role as mediator was being somewhat undermined by unilateral actions that were not agreed upon. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it must be challenging for editors that have polarized/opposing political views to come to an agreement, and that is why there could be some value in using a third party to mediate. My suggestion at this point would be for editors to allow me the space to copyedit a compromise version that hopefully addresses the concerns expresses so far by both sides. After I am done, I will submit the version at Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox/Compromise version for editor's review. This version will be one that neither side will be 100% happy with, but that hopefully will be one that you all can "live with". I will have this version done later today. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Tex, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Nasty lead paragraphs: out.
Chad Castagana, cyber stalking, death threats, Bahrain: out.
I don't see anybody here who has "polarized/opposing political views" here. There used to be a couple of people like that, but they threw a big hissy fit and flounced off. Do you see anybody with an opposing view here, Jossi? - 12ptHelvetica 01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, why should there be a compromise when one side is right and the other side is wrong? The article that I assembled here [2] satisfies all of FAAFA's concerns. It treats FR exactly the same as DU and Kos. There is no negative press in the lead paragraphs; instead, it's limited to the last 25% of the article, exactly like DU and Kos. It also satisfies RWR's concerns because it has no remarks by Robinson. The material about Chuy's, Castagana etc. just doesn't fit, if we're going to stay under 25% C&C like the DU and Kos articles. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI) I am back and will participate as long as Jossi is in charge of this mediation. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still Here.

And I don't consent to the current sandbox version. I'll be back onto this topic when I am not busy making money...  :-) --BenBurch 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am back, withdraw my statement of withdrawl, and will work actively on the article as long as Jossi is in charge of this mediation. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Look forward to everybody's comment, including BenBurch's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise version

The "compromise version" that I have put together is available at Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox/Compromise version.

Please write your comments below, in bullet format, maximum 5 bullets per editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comments by BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs)

  • The lead paragraphs contain an abundance of negative material, unlike the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos articles, whose lead paragraphs contain absolutely zero negative material.
  • The article contains much, much more than 25% "controversy and criticism" (C&C), unlike the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos articles. I cut and pasted the entire article into Microsoft Word, removed footnotes and section headlines, and used Word Count. The result was 1,283 words; of those, 591 words (46%) are negative.
  • Inclusion of the "Bahraini," "death threat" and "owner of a restaurant" paragraphs violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Removing them, and the negative material in the lead, would remove the undue weight objection and bring it in at around 25% C&C.
  • The references include (A) an article by Todd Brendan Fahey (#1), who is not a reliable source, and (B) a Salon article (#6) which again violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. On a positive note, the self-published articles by Pitt and Niman have been removed from the external links.

-- BryanFromPalatine 04:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs)

  • - Still way too much OR, unsubstantiated FR claims, and links to FR.
  • - 'Rathergate/Memogate' - Wiki articles about the blogs/forums Free Republic, Little Green Footballs and Power Line all claim to be 'instrumental' in breaking/solving Memogate. Drudge too, I think. Which is it? The info on Buckethead should note that he is a GOP attorney/operative. Way too much info on Memogate. The article is supposed to be about FR - not Memogate
  • - WAPO/LAT lawsuit info. More POV expressed through links to FR, FR's answer rather than the court decision, and selective use of info. FR lost the lawsuit, and IMHO WAPO / LAT acted magnanimously by letting them off the hook for $5,000 x 2 instead of putting them out of business. The lawsuit info is not 'criticism'. FR broke the law posting the full text of copyrighted articles. Here's a better link [3]
  • - Not enough right wing (or left wing criticism) included. Bryan himself noted "as you are well aware, there are many conservatives who don't like the way Jim Robinson runs Free Republic. In fact, there are some communities of banned Freepers who harbor at least as much animosity toward FR as you do" Much of this criticism is from blogs and forums, but it at least needs to be documented. Numerous new forums have started in response to FR's shift in direction the last 6 years. This shift has been so radical that their 'Mission statement' is IMHO demonstrably false and shouldn't be included. see The Fahey article helps. The links to Will Pitt and Niman are needed. More positve info needed too - counterprotests, fundraising for good causes, letter writing to soldiers in Iraq, etc.
  • -The article should include info on Chad Castagana. His actions were so notable that he's been dubbed 'The UnaFreeper' creating a whole new neologism.

F.A.A.F.A. 05:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by RWR8189 (talk · contribs)

  • Rathergate gave FR a huge amount of exposure of any time its history by independent media outlets. There are several reliable sources given that highlight the role the website played. What is relevant about Buckhead is that he is a member of FR, and media outlets covered his role in the scandal in that context.
  • The WaPo/LA Times lawsuit and the settlement are notable, and they should be described in the most NPOV way possible.
  • As a compromise I am not completely opposed to the inclusion of the previous criticism, however they should not be given undue weight. I think it can be summed up in a paragraph, the Democratic Underground article may serve as a model. Links to other sites that claim they are spinoffs of FR cannot be included, especially not some geocities site, it is original research.
  • As I have stated numerous times, Castagana has no place in this article. His relationship to FR is as incidental to his alleged crimes as a membership to the local YMCA would be. And that "whole new neologism" pops up on a whopping 4 different websites on Google.

--RWR8189 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Respsonse to your response. I don't think we are supposed to 'debate' each other on these points so I will only demonstrate that Free Republic is much better known for being the losing party in a major copyright infingement lawsuit than it is for 'memogate' Free Republic + Dan Rather = 85,300 GHits compared to Free Republic + Fair Use = 1,100,000 GHits - F.A.A.F.A. 08:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs)

  • Properly contructing a Google search can alter results a great deal. Free Republic + CBS = 355,000 hits. Buckhead posted a pinpoint accurate challenge to the authenticity of the Killian memos within 19 minutes of the start of the CBS News broadcast that revealed them. No other blog or website even comes close to that. This event deserves substantial coverage. It resulted in firing, forced resignations or early retirement of five senior executives, including Dan Rather, who had been a regular fixture on CBS News for over 30 years.
  • The WaPo/LA Times lawsuit settlement was not a case of the news corporation, Tribune Co., feeling sorry for Jim Robinson. The FR legal team was hell on wheels during the appeal. You should read their appellate briefs. They are available online. Brian Buckley, an attorney known at FR as Clarity (and nephew of William F. Buckley), sliced and diced the WaPo/LA Times attorneys on appeal. The settlement of that case for less than half a penny on the dollar was a genuine David killed Goliath victory. And if you think it wasn't controversial or that there wasn't one hell of a lot of criticism piled on FR for posting entire WaPo/LA Times articles, then like Judas Priest said, you've got another "think" coming. The settlement completely erased the summary judgment. So there was no court finding that FR violated copyright law, or that FR caused any damages. If you ask me, they got away with murder. John Wayne Gacy has been mentioned here. Imagine Gacy getting a $10,000 fine and walking out the front door of the courthouse after his trial. No jail time. "Mr. Gacy, you are free to go." That's how newsworthy and shocking and controversial it was in the realm of copyright law.
  • Neither space (25%) nor undue weight limitations permit the inclusion of Castagana, Bahrain, cyber stalking or death threats. There are other objections to such material that I haven't even discussed. The space and undue weight arguments should be more than enough.
  • Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
  • Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
  • Remove the negative stuff from the lead.
  • Remove the negative stuff from the lead.

With all due respect to everyone concerned, how many times does that have to be said? Really, How Many Times? ArlingtonTX 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by 12ptHelvetica (talk · contribs)

Before registering as 12ptHelvetica I have been contributing here at Wikipedia without registering an account for over two years. Please don't be confused by the short history in my "talk" or "contribs" links. In all of my time here at Wikipedia, I have never seen an article that was more slanted than this article before Bryan went to work on it. Let's remember who slanted it in the first place.

  • We must try to remember who is calling Castagana "the Unafreeper." It is the fanatic left-wing partisans at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, and it is a reflection of their hatred of the Freepers. Buckhead's claim to fame was produced by his participation at FR. Chad Castagana's claim to infamy (or notoriety) was produced without any real connection to his particpation at FR. Buckhead is in; Castagana is out.
  • The Bahrain, cyber stalking, death threats etc. are out. Undue weight, 25% rule, call it whatever you want. Without any of that, there's already more negative stuff than you'll find in the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos articles. And let's examine the true nature of these alleged death threats. What exactly was posted that has the left-wingers all in a lather? Don't even try to tell me that nothing like that has ever been posted about Bush, over at DU or dKos, but there is no mention of that in their articles. It has been alleged that the cyber stalking event was the work of a DU mole. If it appears in the FR Wikipedia article, the mole would be richly rewarded for his work. Also recall that the information published about the Chuy's manager was in the public domain, because she had declared bankruptcy and her bankruptcy documents were previously posted at the Smoking Gun. [4] There have been inappropriate "calls to action" at DU as well, notably calling for a "denial of service" attack against FR's now defunct British sister site (Free Britannia) but again there is no mention of that in the DU article. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707033/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/552159/posts] There should be no negative stuff at all in the lead paragraphs because there isn't any in the lead paragraphs of the DU and dKos articles.
  • The site owner's comments on homosexuality, evolution etc. should be in. Robinson is a reliable source about what Robinson believes.
  • The Rathergate and LA Times incidents should get more attention than they're getting.
  • Bryan wrote a much better and more balanced article at the link he provided. The Salon article he mentioned is just a way to get the cyber stalking incident in through the back door, so it's out. The William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman articles are not only heavily biased trash, they're self published, so they're out. Fahey has no credibility for the reasons Bryan has cited, so he's out. - 12ptHelvetica 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by DP1976 (talk · contribs)

  • The editing and mediation process is well advanced. I'll compare Free Republic to the Muslim religion. A tiny percentage of its members are radicals on some sort of jihad. Their behavior is objectionable. However, the vast majority are peaceful and inoffensive. When speaking of the entire group, we must be careful not to offend the vast majority who are harmless.
  • Since Chad Castagana's Free Republic account was not used to cause any mischief, he shouldn't be mentioned here. Since the cyber stalking incident involved posting of material that was already in the public domain as 12pt described, that incident shouldn't be mentioned here. If the "call to action" had resulted in a "freep" of the restaurant, and especially if it had resulted in damage to the restaurant, an injury to anyone, or any other great disturbance, then I would say it should be covered in detail. But that is not the case. I have read the comments that have been characterized as a "death threat" against the Clintons and that doesn't belong here either.
  • In all respects, Free Republic must be handled in precisely the same way as Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. This means there must be nothing negative in the first two paragraphs; that all the material that is negative should be placed at the bottom of the article; and that it must not constitute more than 25 percent of the total article length.
  • We should not link to William Rivers Pitt, Michael Niman or Todd Brendan Fahey for the same reason that we do not link to the Stormfront.org website in an article about the Jewish religion. Their hatred for Free Republic clouds their judgment and their objectivity. They are incapable of treating this topic fairly.
  • I am a latecomer to this project. As an opponent of the war and a lifelong Democrat, I oppose Free Republic and all it stands for. But I oppose hypocrisy and double standards as well. Treat them the same way DU and Dkos have been treated. DP1976 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you for your comments // Next steps

Thank you for your comments and the orderly manner in which you made these. It is very helpful to me (and I hope to you as well) to be able to read the main points of contention. I will take these comments into account on the next revision of the compromise version. I hope to have this new version ready by tomorrow, for a second and last round of comments and subsequent edits. Thanks again for your participation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Tempest in a teapot" accurately describes the material that is the subject of so much argument. There hasn't been so much attention from the mainstream news media, as attention from progressive-minded talkboards and blogs who find such activities objectionable. Of course those talkboards and blogs generate Google hits just like the New York Times. My compliments to Jossi for a situation well handled. DP1976 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words ... but we are not done yet. As we say in Spanish "No cantes gloria antes de la victoria" (Don't sing glory before victory). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I will be traveling all through the holiday weekend and I will be off the Net. I suspect the others may be doing the same. This will be my last Wiki posting period until Tuesday night, December 26 at the earliest. Welcome to the discussion, DP1976 If anyone wants some proof that death threats against government officials have been posted at DU, with never a mention in the DU article here at Wikipedia, just click on this link [5] The Secret Service was actually investigating these death threats. And of course, DU hasn't been entirely angelic about posting personal info of people they don't like [6] but once again, you'll never hear a whisper of anything like that in the DU article at Wikipedia ... and everyone have a very Merry Christmas and a busy and prosperous New Year. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could study up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Original_research over the holidays. What you would like to have included in the DU article is forbidden by policy, just like the homophobic and other vitriolic comments by Jim Robinson plucked from FR itself which you want included. Why am I not surprised that you're defending Michell Malkin, someone many consider to be one of the most hate-filled extremists on the far right fringe of the far right. Not many pundits are accused of helping drive someone to suicide. AFAIK, Michelle stands alone in that regard! RIP Denice Denton Happy Holidays and don't drink too much eggnog. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
What you would like to have included in the DU article is forbidden by policy ... You just don't get it. It doesn't appear in the DU article and I'm not trying to change that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in the FR article either. DU is a reliable source about what happened to DU, and DU is saying that the Secret Service investigated DU for death threats against government officials. [7] Why am I not surprised that you're defending Michell Malkin ... FAAFA, I would defend anyone's right, including yours, to be protected from the disclosure of personal information on a website that is seething with rage and loathing for her. Unfortunately for Mia Lawrence, the bankruptcy process requires the disclosure of personal info; and when it was carried to TheSmokingGun.com and then to Free Republic, it had already been disclosed and was in the public domain. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI)I again encourage you to read up on WP. The quotes from JR, and the thread on DU are original research, primary sources AND self published sources, all of which are usually NOT allowed. "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." see Incidents like Chuy's are ONLY allowed because they were documented by RS V secondary sources. I'll let Jossi explain this to you, since you and 'your friends' don't believe me, RW, or L2B - F.A.A.F.A. 02:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I had no time to work on the revised version, as promised. Hope to find such time in the next day or so. Happy holidays to you all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition(s)

==Social organization and events==

Freepers counter-protest at an anti-war demonstration at Arlington National Cemetery on October 2, 2004.
Freepers counter-protest at an anti-war demonstration at Arlington National Cemetery on October 2, 2004.

There are local chapters within Free Republic which are organized through ping lists, e-mail, and Free Republic mail.

The more active chapters organize live protests, which they call "Freeps." Often these are counter protests, as responses to protests by groups whom they oppose. "Freepers," will assemble at a predetermined location with signs and banners which are generally designed and hand-drawn by individual members.

One such Freep was described by reporter by Kerry Lauerman for Salon.com [8] in 2001. A number of Freepers paid $20 each to attend the conference at which conservative politicians and thinkers of varying pedigrees spoke to the issues that most interested the audience; the rights of man, the problems with the news media, and striper lakes. The climax of the evening was the presentation of a large Confederate Flag, to "Bob Johnson, from Los Angeles, for spearheading the Free Republic Network."

in 2005, Free Republic helped organize and stage a 'Freep' in Washington D.C. intended to show support for the troops and in opposition to the September 24 2005 anti warprotest which drew an estimated 100,000. Free Republic's D.C. chapter leader and frequent spokekperson for the group Kristinn Taylor was quoted as saying that they "were prepared for 20,000 people to attend the pro-military rally, billed as a time to honor the troops fighting, the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world." Instead of the 20,000 expected, an estimated 100 reportedly did attend. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491040/posts]

Free Republic's counter-protest activities at Walter Reed Army Hospital are also notable. In 2005(? confirm date) the Antiwar group Code Pink initiated recurring protests outside the hospital, home to many soldiers severely injured in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The protests reportedly included mock caskets and signs which said "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton." sentiments offensive to many members of Free Republic. The D. C. Chapter, along with other groups, organized successful counter-protests, which allegedly resulted in Code Pink severely curtailing their Walter Reed protests, a clear victory for Free Republic and the other pro-war groups. [9]

(Also find and include info on FR's letter writing and gift giving campaigns for the troops) Comments? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Republic Inaugural Ball

In January 2005, Free Republic hosted an inaugural ball at the Washington Plaza Hotel with the intention to celebrate the reelection of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as honor our men and women serving in the Armed Forces. The event featured Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and his rock and roll band, Capitol Offense.

--RWR8189 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More allegations of death threats from Free Republic

"Followers of the Free Republic gained notoriety earlier for posting death threats against President Clinton. This was the most direct:"

  • "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy! He, Clinton, has now embroiled The United States of America in a terrorist attack on a sovereign nation, and I will not stand-by, and let him kill my offspring. You better wake up, people, he's now gonna kill our kids, and the congress and senate are not going to do A GODDAMM THING!!!!!!! We better do it now, kids, while we've still got guns, or we're gonna be doing it with torches and pointy sticks later, with a lot more casualties! Don't think I'll be posting here for a while, folks. I think I'll be talkin' to the USSS for a while, and trying to convince them to kill him!...Later, buds. Gonzo" Free Republic Death Threats

Jossi, can you add this into the next version? - F.A.A.F.A. 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

More:

  • But in March of 2004, a member of Free Republic posted what he described as an “Enemies List,” triumphantly announcing, “Here you are, FReepers. Here is the enemy. Working in conjunction with A.N.S.W.E.R., they have given us their names.” What followed was a list of signatories for an online petition posted by ANSWER. The obvious purpose of posting this list on Free Republic was for “Freepers” to target individual names on the petition for harassment, and the original post made this plain by adding, “How about this one --- [Name Omitted], U.S. Coast Guard, [Location omitted]. Well, sailor, I guess it is time for me to call your commanding officer and see what he thinks about this.”

Enemies List

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts The Enemies List on Free Republic]

Ouch! - F.A.A.F.A. 03:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do either of those sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, I would tend to think not.--RWR8189 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me to check! AmericanPolitics is a respected source and TJ Walker is a contributor to National Review! TJ Walker on National Review Buzzflash is pretty important, but Pamela Troy seems to have written less hard news. It appears that the additional FR threats against Clinton (The Freepers seem to have been much less fond of war when Clinton was waging it) are DEFINATELY inclusionable, but maybe not the enemies list
  • "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy! He, Clinton, has now embroiled The United States of America in a terrorist attack on a sovereign nation, and I will not stand-by, and let him kill my offspring." Free Republic Death Threats - F.A.A.F.A. 09:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Writing a guest column for NRO does not necessarily make one notable. I haven't really found any information that makes the American Politics Journal notable or a WP:RS. It doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and looking at the 869,332 Alexa ranking and very few if any mentions in other reliable sources I'd probably slap a db-web tag on it if I came across it. Lack of WP article doesn't make the source inherently non-notable or unreliable but I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise as of yet.--RWR8189 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a RS to me! TJ Walker is notable too.
"Underwiters Digital Research is a holding company for American Politics Journal, Inc (AMPOL)., CursonKoopersmith Partners, Inc., E-Vote Inc, and American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. The company maintains offices in New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia and Silicon Valley. It's principal business is political communications with American Politics Journal its flagship publication.Underwriters Digital Research also conducts voter surveys via telephone and internet. It mounts the longest running, deepest and brodest political survey of voter attitudes on the net. American Politics Journal is the longest continually running political publication on the net with more than 21 million readers annually. The Journal began in 1988 over Prodigy." APJ's parent company - F.A.A.F.A. 09:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
AmericanPolitics is a respected source ... You claim it's "respected," but repected by who? Your little friends at DU and dKos? Sorry, it's a biased left-wing source. You mention that it has a lot of readers and it's been around for a long time? "Mad" magazine and Marvel Comics can make the same claims. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia recognizes them as Reliable Sources. Buzzflash is pretty important ... Buzzflash is another biased left-wing source. My understanding is that Salon is about as low on the totem pole as Wikipedia is willing to go, in order to accept some website as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, Bryan could trot over to the DU article and post that stuff about the Michelle Malkin personal info posts, based on http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/2006/04/dummies-launch-hate-attack-on-michelle.html - 12ptHelvetica 21:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my comments

link to critical comments from a conservative claiming that FR and Jim Robsinson have shifted from being genuinly conservative to mainstream GOP Bush-backers. RWR feels these are a BLP violation, so he keeps deleting them. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding "IMO" which I assume to mean "in my opinion" can mean a few things. You're editing another person's comments to mean something that they may not mean, and in doing so you still ignore the obvious WP:NPA and WP:BLP violations. Or a hopefully less likely conclusion could be drawn that the above comments really are your opinion and RKBA69 is another account of yours. Either way, I don't understand you obsession with keeping potentially slanderous material on this talk page.--RWR8189 08:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Refactoring comments per WP:BLP. Diff]--RWR8189 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got a lot of nerve, RW! Someone new who opposes Free Republic shows up and weighs in with their opinion, and you delete their comments???!!! WOW! The writer did note the censorship and Stalinesque tendencies of Freepers. Hmmmmm. I really can't believe you would do that. Give your delete button a rest RW! - F.A.A.F.A. 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The little rant in the very least violates WP:NPA and there may be WP:BLP implications. I erred on the side of caution.--RWR8189 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggested adding more POSITIVE material to the article - and I reposted what had been written and wrote a whole new paragraph on FR's 'triumph' over Code Pink, and suggested that you add some info on FR's 2004 inauguration events. Did you? No! What did you do? Deleted someone else's critical comments! Odd choice. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my concerns about important Wikipedia policies.--RWR8189 09:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering Jim Robinson's own words already documented on this page such as:
"So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!"Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm SOURCE]
And RS links describing him as an 'extremist' -I can't fathom how you would delete someone else's comments - comments perhaps even more important than mine since they're from a user banned by JR, and they're from the right - comments essential to this discussion - with BLP claims. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rkba69 Rkba has a track record of just one contribution here at Wikipedia and you're looking at it. Tell us, Rkba69, how is it that you found your way here to the Talk page of the Free Republic article? Did you respond to a ping list at DU or dKos? Did you get an e-mail from FAAFA or BenBurch? And welcome to Wikipedia! - 12ptHelvetica 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well by all means FAAFA, if you don't think epithets such as referring to a person as "rimjob" calling him a "socializt" and "worse than Stalin," not to mention accusing the man of accepting bribes et al, violates WP:NPA or WP:BLP, then I guess it can stay here.--RWR8189 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Rkba69, the claims you're making about Free Republic cannot be included in the article unless they are supported by what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Please read WP:RS to learn what qualifies as a reliable source. Of course, your comments on the Talk page are always welcome if they do not attack other Wikipedia members (we have rules against trolling and vandalism FYI) and they will probably prompt your new little friend, FAAFA, to go looking for a reliable source to support them. The $64,000 question is whether he, or you, can find such a source that is truly reliable according to Wikipedia standards. - 12ptHelvetica 11:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mix with freepers since it bacame socializt. I would never mix with the commies at DU and DKos. I will find links to rimjobs socializt posts. I see there are many socializt leening freepers here. you can't fool a real bonefide conservative like me. Rkba69 04:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Note I have decided again to refactor the original comments per WP:NPA WP:BLP and WP:RPA. If these accusations don't merit removal, I don't know what does. FAAFA, if you disagree go to the ANI and see what they think.--RWR8189 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe your a socializt because only socilaizts and GWB lovers defend FR. you cant be a real conservative like me. I know that for sure. why are you defending FR and JR and his socliizt leenings? Rkba69 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't what you're hoping to prove here, but please respect WP:NPA.--RWR8189 07:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Many of GWB and GOP policies are socializt. that is undisputed truth. like medicare and uneployment and taxes. if you support GWB and medicare and the IRS you are a socializt. I cant help your socializm. Rkba69 07:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation - Conclusion

I have posted a new version at Free Republic, which I believe is a fair description of the site, its aims, and the controversy about it. I know that it is not perfect, but I believe is a useful article for our readers. As said at the beginning of this "informal mediation" process, neither side will be 100% happy with it, but hopefully they can "live with it".

Regarding the lead, as it is from your comments a highly contentious issue, please note that leads needs to present a summary of the article including any critical aspects. WP:LEAD tells us: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

I would hope that the debate and the work we have put into this will be enough to eliminate any future editwarring. Yes, we all have our POVs, and it is not usual that we get to engage in direct debates with people that have antagonistic POVs to ours, but this is what Wikipedia is all about.

I wish you a very happy holiday season, a happy New Year, and happy editing as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

One task that is needed is to convert all hyperlinks to external sites using the web cite template as follows:

  • Cite web: {{cite web |url= |title= |date= | accessdate=2006-12-11 |format= |work= }}

) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jossi, very little has changed in this article through the mediation process. You've caved in to BenBurch and FAAFA, and virtually ignored the comments of RWR8189, Lawyer2b, Bryan, 12pt, DP1976 and myself. You've included the additional material offered by FAAFA without any discussion by any other participating editors, even BenBurch. Several of the participating editors have been traveling for the holiday weekend, and have been unable to participate in the final editing and commentary process. Most objectionable is the inclusion of negative stuff in the lead, when it is not included in the leads of the DU and Dkos articles. Ignoring a 75% majority and caving in to a 25% minority solves nothing. Should we now go over to the DU and Dkos articles and make them more like this one? That's sure to start a couple of edit wars. ArlingtonTX 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello ArlingtonTX. Note the reference to WP:LEAD. I checked the DU article and added a mention of the controversy there as well, as article's leads need to summarize the article including any controversies. As for the Dkos article, if you tell me the name of the article itself, I will make sure that any controversies are included in the lead of that article as well. Think of the reader. Readers need to gain a good sense of what the article is all about, and a short mention of the controversy needs to be made available there. Maybe it can be reduced further, though, but not completely eliminated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your application of WP:LEAD, but I have some concerns as to whether Lewrockwell is a reliable source.--RWR8189 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that reliable sources need to be assessed in context. A source may be reliable about one subject and unreliable about another. What editors need to ask is: is this source reliable for the claims it makes? is this source being used to assert a fact, or to assert an opinion? If the former, then we should be able to find multiple sources; if the latter, we need to assess if the source is notable enough to be a significant opinion worth quoting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked the DU article and added a mention of the controversy there as well ... Let's see how long it lasts, and whether FAAFA and BenBurch leap to your defense or join the school of piranhas that is sure to gather around you there. As for the Dkos article, if you tell me the name of the article itself, I will make sure that any controversies are included in the lead of that article as well. That would be Daily Kos Jossi.
A source may be reliable about one subject and unreliable about another. What editors need to ask is: is this source reliable for the claims it makes? Todd Brendan Fahey is unreliable for the reasons Bryan described. He posted a series of six links that completely annihilate Fahey's credibility. is this source being used to assert a fact, or to assert an opinion? If the former, then we should be able to find multiple sources ... Multiple sources do not guarantee reliability. There are several talkboards that are dominated by the lunatic left-wing fringe: DU ... Daily Kos ... Talking Points Memo ... Bartcop ... Buzzflash ... Guardian Talk (UK) ... Smirking Chimp ... Capitol Grilling ... That's eight so far.
All eight of these talkboards have a dominant culture that harbors an irrational fear and loathing of George W. Bush and Free Republic. Some of them are openly hostile to conservative and even moderate members, and ban them on sight; others purport to be non-partisan, but a strong majority of the members are left-wingers who shout down everyone else and generally behave like street gangs, staking out and defending their turf. One of the allegedly non-partisan talkboards, Capitol Grilling, loathes Free Republic so badly that you can't even link FR directly on a CG thread; you have to use an indirect linking service such as Tiny URL. The conclusion is that even multiple sources don't guarantee reliability, because all the sources could harbor the same bias about this particular topic. - 12ptHelvetica 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently "bad" about bias, as most sources are biased one way or another. So, as long as we are attributing opinions to those that hold them, we are within the boundaries of what is permissible as set by our content policies, providing of course, that these opinions are significantly held. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a summary of the relevant controversies at Daily Kos, and Democratic_Underground. I would be surprised if these are deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
... providing of course, that these opinions are significantly held. A few, or even a few dozen anonymous members at a left-wing dominated talkboard do not make an opinion about a right-wing talkboard "significantly held." - 12ptHelvetica 01:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

you need more stuff about FR banning real conservatives. and about the censorship. FR is all socializt now, and the socializt freepers are defending their socilazit king at FR. there are no conservatives there. Rkba69 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben's reversion

I'm not sure how you term that as the last conensus version, as it is quite different from the last version Jossi posted.--RWR8189 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ben and fifi should be banned for being communizts. Rkba69 07:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL! The ghost of Joe Mccarthy lives! Red-baiting is SO 1950's! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stop it

I just started articles on the real conservative altenitives to the soclizit free republic, and you socializts are trying to delete them. liberty forum, liberty post, ad original dissent. that proves your soclists. socilaizts hate freedom of speech. like stalin

STOP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkba69 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I knew nothing about your feud here but I nominated two of your articles for deletion because those sites appear completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Dgies 07:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider

I have restored the "compromise version" that I drafted, with the hope that editors may re-consider it as such. The other option seems to be yet-another-endless-edit-war, that will only result in aggravation for all involved. Please give it some thought. Thank you.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If that is accepted, editors may agree to only add new material that is properly sourced, and reach agreement on removal of any existing material before deleting it. These may be wise ground-rules to adopt, so as to not to lose the work done so far. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is possible, Jossi. I respect the contributions you've made and the work you've done. The only part of the compromise version I really can't accept is the Fahey material and link (especially in the lead) since I don't see him as a reliable source. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Other material that I've objected to ... well, I find your abbreviated version acceptable, but only as a compromise. BenBurch, on the other hand, wants to pretend that the mediation process never happened. He has just reverted to the pre-mediation, pre-12pt, pre-Bryan consensus version that he created with FAAFA, another left-wing partisan from DU. Leave the lock on it, Jossi, and let's see what he has to say. If he wants to play "consensus," my side has the votes and we won't be in a compromising mood; and he'll run out out of reverts before we do. Let's see what he has to say. - 12ptHelvetica 20:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
12PT and others - what do you claim is untrue, inaccurate or misleading in the Fahey article? I will again post a number of sources which all confirm his allegations, although they themselves are not inclusionable. Bryan himself admitted that much of the criticism and animosity directed at FR comes from the right. Why is this even being objected to?
1 original dissent thread about FR Conservative forum (thanks Rkba - I'd not heard of it]
2 Sentry over America - crticism of JR and FR from the right
3 coming
4 coming
5 coming - F.A.A.F.A. 20:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
12PT and others - what do you claim is untrue, inaccurate or misleading in the Fahey article? Fahey himself has an inherent lack of credibility. He is a conspiracy theorist and, apparently, has several other problems according to Barb Hartnett and Stew Webb. For example, Lyndon LaRouche may tell you that there were direct links between the Bush family and the Nazi Party in Germany. But he's such a complete nutball that you need to verify it from other, more reliable sources - and once you've done that, why bother linking to LaRouche at all? Get some reliable sources for this stuff and leave Fahey out. I will again post a number of sources which all confirm his allegations ... FAAFA, tell us whether you'd consider these to be RS if the words "Free Republic" were replaced by "Democratic Underground," and I wanted to use them in the DU article. - 12ptHelvetica 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My concerns regarding the current edit

1) The info on the lawsuit is POV, innaccurate, and misleading. I can find no source claiming that the WSJ and Reuters threatened action. I can find no source stating '$1M in attorney's fees'. The crux of the matter was NOT the money. Free Republic argued the case on (at least) 4 grounds: a) that they were non-profit b)'fair use' c) that they were 'transforming' the articles d) 'Free Spech'. ALL of these arguments were denied. They had to pull every copyrighted article from LAT and WAPO and agree to never post full text articles again. A notice is still required to be on their site years later. lawsuit link 1 lawsuit docs and analysis - F.A.A.F.A. 21:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I can find no source claiming that the WSJ and Reuters threatened action. I can't find anything either and I had my doubts about that from the beginning, so I agree that we should leave out that parenthetical statement. I can find no source stating '$1M in attorney's fees'. Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland of Beverly Hills is a very pricey law firm. They served as counsel for WaPo/LA Times. [15] The final judgment by Judge Morrow (a Clinton appointee, BTW) was dated 11/17/00 and included the award of attorney fees. Unfortunately, I can't find an online version of the final order anywhere but I've found two "tentative orders" dated 11/8/99 and 7/31/00. ... ALL of these arguments were denied. The out-of-court settlement vacated the summary judgment, so the denial of those arguments isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
This link [16] takes you to a lot of supporting links on this case. At this link [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fdeaf57cb5.htm] you'll find Brian Buckley, attorney for FR, mentioning $230,000 in attorney fees; but this figure didn't include the WaPo/LA Times attorney fees for the appeal. At this link [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/517401/posts] you'll find a lot of links to FR threads where Buckley and Robinson disclose a lot of information about the case.
FR has also been targeted by a legion of trolls and moles for a long time, who have used a variety of tactics and several different degrees of cleverness. Here's a permanent injunction against the worst of them. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad1f5631194.htm] - 12ptHelvetica 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
12pt Your false claims and questionable actions will get you nowhere. You falsely claimed: "The out-of-court settlement vacated the summary judgment, so the denial of those arguments isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
The final judgement of May 21, 2002, states on page 10: "This court's ruling of March 31, 2000 on what constitutes fair use and what is protected by the First Amendment is attached to this Amended Final Judgement as exhibit 3, and incorporated by this reference."
The amended final judgement also granted LAT/WAPO a permanent injunction against FR and JR barring further acts of copyright infringement. FR and JR were permanently enjoined from posting the plaintiff's copyrighted work or encouraging others to do so. [page 6]. They were ordered to relinquish, remove and destroy all copies of the plaintiffs copyrighted work [page 9]and to refrain from further copyright violations. [page 10] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707390/posts LAT v FR Final Judgement]
You also made major edits to the article, misleadingly calling these changes 'spelling corrections' and included this totally unsourced and unfounded claim. "moderators at Free Republic have alleged that the harassment directed against the restaurant owners [Chuy's] was done by a "mole" from Democratic Underground, a rival left-wing talkboard." 12pts improper edits I strongly suggest that you change your behavior. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus version supported by Bryan, 12pt, DP1976, RWR8189, Lawyer2b and myself (total of 6 editors):
1. Remove material from and links to articles by Todd Brendan Fahey, William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman. They are heavily biased against Free Republic and they are self-published. They are not reliable.
2. Remove material related to Chad Castagana, restaurant owners who reported Jenna Bush, and implied death threats against President Clinton. These are undue weight violations.
ArlingtonTX 06:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Todd Brendan Fahey's Bio: "Todd Brendan Fahey is a Ph.D. candidate in English at University of Southwestern Louisiana, holds the Master's in Professional Writing from University of Southern California, received his Bachelor of Science, cum laude, in Justice Studies from Arizona State University and studied in 1985 at The University of London-Union College. He began graduate coursework in The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State, before his acceptance into the prestigious Professional Writing Program at USC.

Fahey has served as aide to Central Intelligence Agency agent Theodore L. "Ted" Humes, Division of Slavic Languages, and to the late-Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Lt. General Daniel O. Graham; to former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham (R-AZ), former Congressman John Conlan (R-AZ) and others. He is currently stationed in South Korea as a strategic writer." RS V source for criticism. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Barabara Hartwell's Bio: BryanPalantine wrote "Fahey has been accused of stalking by Barbara Hartwell, an individual I find credible"' BIO: "Barbara Hartwell [claims she is] a survivor of CIA MK ULTRA and PHOENIX [mind control] Projects, trained and utilized by CIA as a deep cover operative and professional CIA asset, under mind control programming, which the perpetrators of this mind control believed was "guaranteed under National Security"." Hartewll wrote: "My own sister, Irene Adrian, was a victim of CIA-sponsored child sexual abuse. In early adulthood, while under mind control by CIA, she was sexually abused by a number of politicians, including Nelson Rockefeller. She was held hostage in a hotel room by Dick Cheney during the 1970s, while living in Omaha, Nebraska. " LINK ! LOL ! Keep the laughs coming! Maybe you'll want to start an article on the 'credible' Barbara Hartwell you seem to believe and admire so much Bryan! - F.A.A.F.A. 05:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatives?

I know I haven't been part of the big discussion on the redesign of this page, but let me just point out that, as show by a 'ping' this morning, there are many paleoconservatives on Free Republic as well. (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1758302/posts) Why not just say the website is for conservatives? Kc8ukw 16:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Because that wouldn't serve the agenda of the DU members who have been turning this article into a hit piece. ArlingtonTX 17:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me not comment on that, because people will eat me, and my fiance doesn't want people to eat me. Any objections to a change from neoconservatives to conservatives? Kc8ukw 18:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Tex, if you continue your attacks, you'll be banned. Kc, I have a bookmark somewhere on FR shift to Neoconservatism/Bush-worship - I'll find it later. I object because it's not true. Conservatives who are against the war, or who crtiticise Bush even slightly are attacked mercilessly on FR. Here's something for now:
"Members and readers of Free Republic would be surprised to know that many members of their community have fallen silent on the discussions about illegal immigration lately because free speech is an illusion on FreeRepublic.com. They are silent because they have been banned from the Web site without warning, cause, or explanation in most cases. For weeks the moderators have been suspending and banning new members that chimed in quickly on the immigration debates. Congressman Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, and the organization Team America PAC are under constant verbal assault by the FROBLs. Anyone that is concerned about illegal immigration is falsely labeled as a racist, wacko, tin-foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist, third party supporter and a Bush basher that could cost the GOP the presidency in 2008. Although the majority of conservatives on the site respectfully disagree with President Bush's immigration policy, these views are being silenced by removal or the threat of removal."
" Although the site is privately owned and Robinson is free to do as he likes, these recent purges have left long term members wondering if the White House or Republican National Committee has undue influence at Free Republic." Link about FR bannings and Bush/GOP worship - F.A.A.F.A. 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Because we all know that a site called "Vdare" is a reliable source...--RWR8189 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
They have an article on Wiki VDARE. Please keep denying the indisputable truth about FR! It encourages me to find even MORE sources!
"Matters came to a head in early 2000 when Robinson (or "JimRob") speculated on George W. Bush’s connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980’s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republic’s link from the Drudge Report, and Goldberg took 2.000 members with her to start her own Lucianne.com.
Robinson decided to clean up his website and, like any good sheriff, deputized a posse of site moderators to remove offensive posts, threads, and articles and to ban those who posted them. But they did not stop there. Soon, they had banned the posting of any articles from certain websites that they deemed taboo, such as VDare.com ("too divisive"), LewRockwell.com, DixieNet.org (the League of the South’s website) , and the Free State Project’s website (www.FreeStateProject.org)
It would be easy to conclude that Robinson and his monitors simply went overboard in an effort to clean up the excesses of Free Republic, but there is more to it than that.
Because of its significant growth, Free Republic costs $240,000 annually to maintain. As a non-profit, Free Republic depends on donors, large and small, for its survival. No doubt the embarrassment of being dropped from the Drudge Report and Goldberg’s public break with the site concerned Robinson, and lie feared that funds might dry up if his site were perceived to he on the fringe. In addition, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court. It was only natural for Robinson and his site administrators to want to look good for prospective donors.
With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders... [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/793011/posts FR link] - F.A.A.F.A. 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where that selection came from, but having an article on Wikipedia does not make a source reliable. Vdare does not seem to be a reliable source. You can waste your time pulling up unreliable sources to your heart's content, but they will not go in the article.--RWR8189 02:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to include it in the article, but it is one more independent documented verification of the claims documented by the inclusionable Fahey reference - claims that can not be denied. "The site and its founder have generated controversy for their alleged post 9/11 shift from their libertarian-leanings and opposition to George W. Bush, to what critics feel has become a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy, and a purported increase in censorship and banning of numerous conservative members. " Why do the Freepers here refuse to admit the truth regarding this? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to revert to supposed "compromise" version

From what I can tell from the history, this revision was a neutral version prior to either 12ptHelvetica and ArlingtonTX's edits, which were apparently attempts at locking the article in some sort of agenda made note of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible sockpuppetry and other issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, I don't see a substantial difference between that version and the current protected version.--RWR8189 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know this, but I do feel that ArlingtonTX's agenda needs some sort of mention. Trying to force an edit war to get their way for either article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That version is mostly correct, but includes the inaccurate POV pro-Free Republic spin regarding L.A. Times vs Free Republic lawsuit, and the bogus $1M 'in attorney fees' and Reuters claims. Please see my notes above. All 4 of FR's defenses were overuled, and 12pts mertitless assertion that they were not, was shown to be untrue. Would you please look at this link, and see if you think if the current pro FR spin accurately describes the court's total rejection of FR's legal defense? LAT v FR I thank you for interceeding, and am dissapointed that the unconscionable actions be certain disgruntled editors trying to evade WP policy have resulted in the article being locked, but their actions show that there was no other choice. I propose that the article remain locked indefinately with one or more admins approving each and every edit. The behavior and actions of certain editors prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can not be trusted to abide by the rules of Wikipedia - F.A.A.F.A. 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Having the article "remain locked indefinitely" is not a method of dealing with this. This protection, and nearly all article protections, are not temporary measures. This article is an issue, and trying to push an agenda is a violation of WP:POINT and other such policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Trying to force an edit war to get their way My impression is that they were preparing for BenBurch and FAAFA to start an edit war - a defensive rather than an offensive strategy: Don't even try it DUmmies. We've been getting ready for you to start an edit war for a month - 209.221.240.193 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is the edit requested? Tom Harrison Talk 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Lawsuit Revision

Some links:

tech law journal all docs except ameneded final judgement

USC

Venable

current inaccurate POV version


Because it has been a practice of Free Republic to allow its users to copy and paste copyrighted news stories in their entirety to its discussion boards, Free Republic was sued by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. The tort complaint of $1,000,000 was filed in the US Court of the Southern District of California. [14] Many members view the lawsuit as an unsuccessful conspiracy by a "liberal media" to stifle the organization; founder Robinson referred to the suit as "a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."[15] The federal trial court judge awarded a summary judgment for $1,000,000 in damages to the two newspapers, plus over $1,000,000 in attorney's fees. Free Republic appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a negotiated settlement, Free Republic agreed to remove the posted articles from the sites listed in the complaint, and paid these two newspapers $5,000 each. Today, other publishers, such as Condé Nast Publications, have joined The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times in objecting to the posting of entire copyrighted articles. Users now post excerpts from such publishers (as allowed by fair use), and the site filters submissions against a watchlist of "banned" sources, by request of their webmaster or as a result of the lawsuit, as a precaution against future lawsuits.[8]

Proposed version


Because it has been a practice of Free Republic to allow and even encourage its users to copy and paste copyrighted news stories in their entirety to its discussion boards, Free Republic was sued by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times for federal copyright infringement. [17] Many members viewed the lawsuit as a conspiracy by the "liberal media" to stifle the organization; founder Robinson referred to the suit as "a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."[15] Free Republic's defense claimed that the site was non-profit, and argued Fair Use, First Amendment and that the works were 'transformative'. All these arguments were overuled and/or disallowed. The federal trial court judge ruled against Free Republic and awarded summary judgment for $1,000,000 in damages to the two newspapers, plus attorney's fees. Free Republic announced their intent to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and filed a brief, but chose another avenue. In a negotiated settlement, The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were granted a permanent injunction against Free Republic enjoing them from further copyright violations. Free Republic removed all the copyright violations and agreed to post a notice on their website describing the stipulations, and to direct its members to cease violating copyright law. Each paper was awarded a sum of $5,000, a significant reduction from the original award. Users now post excerpts from copyrighted articles (as allowed by fair use), and the site filters submissions against a watchlist of "banned" sources, by request of their webmaster or as a result of the lawsuit, as a precaution against future lawsuits.[8]

(will add refs) - F.A.A.F.A. 05:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest sticking to what the negotiated final order actually says. There was no finding that FR had ever violated copyright law, therefore there should be no reference to "further copyright violations." FR agreed to remove all the full-article posts, not the "copyright violations." FR agreed to direct its members to cease posting full articles from the plaintiff newspapers and limit themselves to excerpts, not "to cease violating copyright law." Your thrice repeated recitation of some form of the phrase "copyright violations" misleads the reader into believing that the final, negotiated court ruling made a finding that copyright law had been violated. This misleading effect may or may not be intentional on your part. Thank you. - DP1976 19:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You're 100% wrong. Please look at the pages cited and retract your false assertions. The amended final judgement granted LAT/WAPO a permanent injunction against FR and JR barring further acts of copyright infringement. FR and JR were permanently enjoined from posting the plaintiff's copyrighted work or encouraging others to do so. [page 6]. They were ordered to relinquish, remove and destroy all copies of the plaintiffs copyrighted work [page 9]and to refrain from further copyright violations. [page 10] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707390/posts LAT v FR Final Judgement] Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In which state are you licensed to practice intellectual properties law? It is possible to infringe a copyright without violating copyright law, as there are several "loopholes," the most significant loophole here being the fair use exception. Some infringements are permissible under the law: United States copyright law has long recognized that some copyright infringement acts are defensible as fair use. That is, under certain circumstances, copyright infringement is permitted without liability. [18] The magic words "copyright violation" (and conjugations and rearrangements thereof) do not appear anywhere in the amended final judgment. I've looked at page 6, page 9 and page 10. The amended final judgment is carefully constructed to avoid any indication that FR violated the law, even as it prevents FR from continuing to post full articles from the plaintiffs' websites. Kindly adhere to the spirit in which the careful drafting of this document was intended. Thank you. - DP1976 21:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did I say that FR broke copyright law? Maybe the word violation should be replaced with infringement? Here is the wording from the amended final judgement: "The court finds that the Plaintiffs and their related companies having "no adequate legal remedy" other than a permanent injunction to protect them against further acts of copyright infringement by the three named defendants..." The amended final judgement of May 21, 2002, also states on page 10: "This court's ruling of March 31, 2000 on what constitutes fair use and what is protected by the First Amendment is attached to this Amended Final Judgement as exhibit 3, and incorporated by this reference."-F.A.A.F.A. 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did I say that FR broke copyright law? Where you said "copyright violations" - not once, not twice, but three times. The layman can get confused, just as you have become confused, by that quotation from the amended final order that mentions "further acts of copyright infringement." This article is not the place for a seminar on copyright law. Simply make the changes I suggested in my 19:23 post and you will have my support. - DP1976 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New Proposed Version

Because it has been a practice of Free Republic to allow and even encourage its users to copy and paste copyrighted news stories in their entirety to its discussion boards, Free Republic was sued by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times for federal copyright infringement. [19] Many members viewed the lawsuit as a conspiracy by the "liberal media" to stifle the organization; founder Robinson referred to the suit as "a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."[15] Free Republic's defense claimed that the site was non-profit, argued Fair Use, First Amendment and that the works were 'transformative'. These arguments were overuled and/or disallowed. The federal trial court judge ruled against Free Republic and awarded a summary judgment for $1,000,000 in damages to the two newspapers, plus attorney's fees. Free Republic announced their intent to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and filed a brief, but chose another avenue. In a negotiated settlement, The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were granted a permanent injunction against Free Republic enjoing them from further copyright infringement. Free Republic removed all the copyright infringements and agreed to post a notice on their website describing the stipulations, and to direct its members to cease posting copyright infringements. Each paper was awarded a sum of $5,000, a significant reduction from the original award. Users now post excerpts from copyrighted articles (as allowed by fair use), and the site filters submissions against a watchlist of "banned" sources, by request of their webmaster or as a result of the lawsuit, as a precaution against future lawsuits.[8] Hows's that? - F.A.A.F.A.

You've simply substituted the word "infringement" for "violation." In the eyes of the layman, they mean the same thing; in the eyes of the law, there is a subtle but important difference. Substitute the phrases I specified in my 19:23 post and you will have my support: "agreed to remove all the full-article posts," and "agreed to direct its members to cease posting full articles from the plaintiff newspapers and limit themselves to excerpts." That's what the final judgment actually says. Also, FR didn't file just one appellate brief; they filed two, the main brief and the reply brief (in response to the Plaintiffs' brief); and "chose another avenue" appears unsupported, since it is unclear from your sources that FR initiated the settlement. (The fact is that the Plaintiffs initiated it.) - DP1976 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
HUH? I used the correct legal terminology so as not to introduce a POV. Do I understand that you want to take out copyright infringement as written in the judgement, and describe copyright infringement? Really???!!!! Please post the exact version you think most accurate and NPOV. Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please post the exact version you think most accurate and NPOV. Here you go. I feel that the most significant aspect of the settlement was the reduction of the monetary award so I moved it to the front of the settlement description. Robinson could have held "Freepathons" for ten years and he still wouldn't have paid off that summary judgment. Free Republic would have gone under. This settlement meant the survival of FR. Do you feel it's significant that Judge Margaret Morrow was a Clinton appointee? - DP1976 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Third Proposed Version
Because it has been a practice of Free Republic to allow and even encourage its users to copy and paste copyrighted news stories in their entirety to its discussion boards, Free Republic was sued by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times for federal copyright infringement. [20] Many members viewed the lawsuit as a conspiracy by the "liberal media" to stifle the organization; founder Robinson referred to the suit as "a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."[15] Free Republic's defense claimed that the site was non-profit, and argued Fair Use, First Amendment and that the works were 'transformative'. These arguments were overruled and/or disallowed. The federal trial court judge ruled against Free Republic and awarded a summary judgment for $1,000,000 in damages to the two newspapers, plus at least $230,000 in attorney's fees. Free Republic announced their intent to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and filed its briefs. In a negotiated settlement, each paper was awarded a sum of $5,000, a reduction of more than 99 percent from the original award. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were granted a permanent injunction against Free Republic, enjoining them from posting full-article posts. Free Republic agreed to remove all the full-article posts, and agreed to post a notice on their website describing the stipulations, and to direct its members to cease posting full articles from the Plaintiffs' websites. Users now post excerpts from copyrighted articles (as allowed by fair use), and the site filters submissions against a watchlist of "banned" sources, by request of their webmaster or as a result of the lawsuit, as a precaution against future lawsuits.[8]
I agree to change the WaPo lawsuit section to the third proposed version. We have to find things we agree about, and build a consensus from there. - 12ptHelvetica 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"a reduction of more than 99 percent from the original award" LOL! You better take a look at WP, specifically OR and 'synthesis of new material'. Please also find a SECONDARY source talking about the attorney's fees, NOT FR's lawyer. FR was enjoined from 'further copyright infringements' - "permanent injunction to protect them against further acts of copyright infringement by the three named defendants"". You will not succed in your attempts to skew this info. FR LOST, and their legal fees almost put them under. It has been lies and POV from the start. There was NO 'tort complaint for $1,000,000' I'll file and RfC in the law section.
From : "How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit – and how their right-wing nutcase attorney got disbarred" FR Hilarity
"Meanwhile, FR was getting its ass kicked in CA Federal Court in the copyright matter with the WP and LAT, as the anti-freepers had been predicting. After losing the argument in Los Angeles Federal Court, Buckley and FR appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Sadly, Buckley never got to see the case to its conclusion, as he and JR became embroiled in a dispute over the legal fees incurred in the case against Aldridge, with JR claiming Buckley hadn't kept him apprised of the fees. Buckley was eventually squeezed out at FR, thanks in part to the efforts of Bob J, who thought all along that a better way to deal with Eschoir would have been to simply have him beaten." FR Hilarity - F.A.A.F.A. 23:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seems that most of the sock puppets and meat puppets here do not understand consensus as applied to Wikipedia.

WP:Voting_is_evil should be your first stopping point. And if you seek to suppress well sourced criticism in this article, then I suggest you read WP:NOT. You clearly are simply not understanding what this encyclopedia is at all. Now, whether the ignorance is due to your newness in the project, [refactored] or willful flouting of the rules I will leave to those more psychic than I. --BenBurch 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Regarding your comment above, some of which I have refactored: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to BenBurch, the following is a quotation from Wikipedia:Consensus :
Consensus can change
Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable for the community to change its mind at times. It is perfectly fine for a small group of editors to reach a consensual decision about an article or group of articles, but if these articles gain more attention from Wikipedia as a whole it is then possible that more people come in that disagree with the initial decision, thus in effect changing the consensus. The original group should not block further discussion on grounds that they already have made the decision. ... At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. ... In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken. [21]
I respectfully suggest that this should be used as a guideline when we consider the subject of consensus here. Also the "voting is evil" canard is illegitimate, since the Wikipedia:Consensus article specifically states that supermajorities may be called for, and specifies margins of 60 percent or even 80 percent in some cases. So it is clearly necessary in some cases to count the votes of the participating editors. I suggest that this is one of those cases. - DP1976 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
DP with all due respect, the reason that Jossi was asked to mediate was because of problems related to accusations of meat/sockpuppetry that were rendering any 'consensus' invalid. When an article suddenly receives an influx of 'brand new' editors, all with the same goals and POVs, the integrity of the article must be protected by other means. Meaning no disrespect, but I can't fathom how and you and the other 'new editors' to Wiki and this article would challenge the experience, knowledge and impartiality of Jossi who came up with a balanced NPOV article. Furthermore, actions like those by 12pt, who tried to sneak in massive edits and claimed that they were 'spelling corrections' and other editors who have demanded that certain well sourced claims be removed - claims that an experienced Admin ruled OK - are very troubling. It is unfortunate that the actions of certain editors forced this article to be locked - where it must remain as long these editors refuse to follow policy - but we can still work on it. Lets get the lawsuit info rewritten, then we can address other issues. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
problems related to accusations of meat/sockpuppetry that were rendering any 'consensus' invalid. Accusations that are not proven have no effect on consensus and undercut your own credibility. Clearly these users have extensive, detailed and diverse editing histories prior to their registration and no particular agenda is evident from those histories. I concur that finding out about their unregistered histories was an unpleasant surprise. If you can't prove such accusations, then I respectfully suggest that you might consider greater prudence in leveling such accusations in the future. - DP1976 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Meaning no disrespect, but you're one of the 'brand new editors' (Dec 10) who chooses to challenge an experienced impartial admin on both WP and NPOV issues. Please reconsider these actions. Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
you're one of the 'brand new editors' (Dec 10) Will you ever learn? I have an unregistered and diverse history of edits of my own going back about a year, [22] mostly relating to Clemson University, my alma mater. Look at the edit history of this page and you'll find my IP address. - DP1976 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
So you're editing Wiki, including this article, as DP1976 and as an anon IP address? I'm not 100% sure, but I think you just admitted to sockpuppetry. Well find out. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Your problem, it appears, is that you reflexively assume the worst about those who have the nerve to disagree with you. Examine the edit history closely. I edited but forgot to log in first. Then I noticed that the four tildes produced my IP address rather than "DP1976." Then I logged in and re-entered the four tildes, producing my signature. That's all there was to it. No harm, no foul. Try to relax and assume good faith. - DP1976 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You admit to editing under two accounts, admit that you wrote this and you want me to AGF? "Don't even try it DUmmies. We've been getting ready for you to start an edit war for a month - 209.221.240.193 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)". - F.A.A.F.A. 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like he didn't write it. Instead, he was quoting ArlingtonTX. This is the part that is a direct quote from ArlingtonTX: "Don't even try it DUmmies. We've been getting ready for you to start an edit war for a month. But don't apologize to him or anything like that. - 12ptHelvetica 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you the editor who made a massive edit and claimed it was a 'spelling correction'? Sorry - I have a hard time keeping socks matched up. I always have an extra after I do my laundry - F.A.A.F.A. 23:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FAAFA, the supreme irony of all of your false accusations and personal attacks is that they're now taking place in a section titled, "Personal attacks." Your sockpuppet investigation was a miserable failure. You aren't making any friends. Do you want to reach a consensus, or do you want to keep on attacking people? -- BryanFromPalatine 12:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More suspected sockpuppetry

On Dec 26, User DP1976 admitted that he was also User IP 209.221.240.193. HERE User 209.221.240.193 posted on Dec 14, HERE and subsequently, user BryanFromPalatine both edited said post 'claiming ownership' of the post by adding his name HERE and added additional text to this same post, again representing himself as 'BryanFromPalatine' HERE

One user/IP address is therefore posting as at least three different and distinct 'users' in an effort to illegally 'vote' and sway consensus. (edited condensed version for RWR) - F.A.A.F.A. 08:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously good work here. I have asked a friendly admin to try to stir some admin action on this very grave matter. --BenBurch 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm no Sam Spade! DP1976 admitted he was also 209.221.240.193. I looked at the history and saw the 12/14 post from that IP became Bryanpalatine's in a later edit. I probably would have never caught it unless DP had given me his IP address! A very serious breech of WP by these suspected sockies. I hope we can say goodbye to several members of this particular [suspected] sock brigade! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
They do seem to have gotten strangely silent. --BenBurch 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there is a reason this isn't on some sort of "sockpuppet discussion page" instead of cluttering up this article's talk page?--RWR8189 06:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it is germane to this discussion that most of the supposed consensus is a single person. And yes, it is on all of the appropriate pages as well. --BenBurch 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope it somehow happens that this is not the case. I am not interested in breaking the rules or gaming the system in this discussion.--RWR8189 08:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About you, I have NO doubts. You're sincere as they come. --BenBurch 08:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as the sockpuppetry allegations go, I will not throw the assumption of good faith out the window until the investigation and check user is completed. I do not think the edits and contributions of the other people contributing to this article should discounted at this time either--RWR8189 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to a final resolution of this case. A full review of all these users and their respective IP addresses will show the following:
1. These are three different people who know each other well enough to occasionally allow each other to use their computers.
2. Each of the three, however, posts almost entirely from a single "home" IP address.
3. A trace on at least two of the three users' "home" IP addresses reveals that they have an extensive editing history on a broad range of topics prior to registration.
A. The home address of DP1976 is 209.221.240.193 and has been used for a year to anonymously edit articles about several subjects, dealing principally with Clemson University. [23]
B. The home address of 12ptHelvetica is 208.250.137.2 and has been used for 2-1/2 years to anonymously edit articles on a broad range of topics, such as Plauen; Michael Milken; Arcola, Illinois; The Actors Studio; Closet drama; and Concordia University at Austin. [24]
C. A comparison of those editing histories with Free Republic confirms that there is no particular "agenda" or single purpose for any of these people, aside from the improvement of Wikipedia.
D. I continue to refuse to disclose my own home IP address. But it differs from these two. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't participate any farther in this until something is done to get BenBurch and FAAFA's rampant hostility and suspicion under control. I will take this opportunity to stress the fact that both BenBurch and FAAFA are DU alumni, with extremely turbulent personal histories here at WP as evidenced by their Talk pages and related archives (including FAAFA's old username). They have now graduated to the use of templates, and even a sockpuppet allegation to pursue their malicious activities here at WP. Everything Bryan has said here is 100 percent accurate. Furthermore, the two IP histories 209.221.240.193 and 208.250.137.2 are completely different. Prior to December of this year no one article, nor even the same general subject matter, has ever been edited from both locations, nor did they have anything in common with FR. There is no crossover until December of this year. One was in use for a year; the other was in use for over two years. There is an abundance of proof available to completely destroy this sockpuppet allegation. The Meatpuppet allegation is more difficult to defeat but, once again, the previous anonymous IP address histories are an indication that there is no common agenda. We do know each other. We come from the same geographic area. But it's clear that we have differences of opinion, as evidenced by our different responses to the hostility and suspicion of these two DU representatives. They do seem to have gotten strangely silent. --BenBurch 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Infer nothing from that. Look at the time of your post. That is 05:53 Greenwich Mean Time, which is 12:53 a.m. on the East Coast of the United States and in Indiana, and very late in the evening (seven minutes before midnight) in Palatine, Illinois. A lot of people in the United States tend to get "strangely silent" at that time of night. - DP1976 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • NOTE Bryanfrompalatine just confirmed sockpuppetry by 12pthelvetica who he says is 208.250.137.2. On Dec 9 at 22:05 IP ad 208.250.137.2 added "I see that this issue has been the subject of much contention since I last looked in on November 16".... HERE 5 minutes later 12pt posted agreeing with the post from 208 (himself) "I agree" HERE I will be out most of the day. I bid the 'Argyle Army' adieu should they be banned when I return. - F.A.A.F.A. 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So are FAAFA and BenBurch sockpuppets? Because they agree with each other on everything. Jinxmchue 16:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No Jinx, they may be Meatpuppets or sockpuppets. But there should be something done about them. In his last post, FAAFA neglects the possibility that there might be a third person who posted from 208.250.137.2 that day. Both BenBurch and FAAFA automatically assume the worst about people who disagree with them, and then scold others for occasional failures to assume good faith. - DP1976 19:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Uh-oh... Jinxmchue 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You're a Meatpuppet, Jinx! You're a Meatpuppet!!! (Insert movie still of Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, pointing and howling like a wolf.) - DP1976 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Proof

ON 12/21, DP1976 edited the post of 12ptHelvetica adding content HERE - F.A.A.F.A. 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To dispel any such concerns, you can place a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have already done so. Maybe it is better to let the process go through. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry Findings

Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Findings DP1976 & BryanFromPalantine

Reposted by F.A.A.F.A. 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous sockpuppet finding

There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region. [25]

1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.

Since DP1976 has announced that he "won't participate any farther in this until something is done to get BenBurch and FAAFA's rampant hostility and suspicion under control," and since the prescribed remedy for a sockpuppet finding is treating the two accounts (DP1976's and mine) as one, there is no reason to not continue the editing process. Also, I'll be appealing this ruling. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But you just claimed "These are three different people who know each other well enough to occasionally allow each other to use their computers." Quite a different story than what you're now claiming! They're also still investigating 12pt. After they finish and ban the socks and related IP's we can get back to editing. If I don't see you again... bye bye! - F.A.A.F.A. 13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The story keeps changing, doesn't it? I'm not sure if we now need to ask for a ban to have it happen, or if that is automatic, but I intend to find out. I hate liars and cheaters! Remember how this started; Bryan got himself a 24 Hour 3RR ban, and stepped around it. First he stepped around it by using an IP, and then he got "clever" and created sockpuppets to step around it. And likely recruited a few meatpuppets too. Cheating AND lying. And he abused the computers of his employer to do this bit of lying and cheating. I wonder if his employer would be happy if they knew? German companies are usually most strict about their employee's activities in my experience. --BenBurch 15:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The story keeps changing, doesn't it? The story never changed. "These are three different people who know each other well enough to occasionally allow each other to use their computers" ... in this case, my computer in my office. - DP1976 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, Bryan, give it a rest. You are sockpuppetting. We proved it. And we are ignoring you henceforth for any purposes of this article. You are welcome to edit, of course, but don't expect that we will consider anything you say with respect to "consensus" here. And again, you would be wise to stop abusing your office computer and network for this private purpose unless you want to get caught and lose your job. Losing your job for pretending to be three different people on the Internet only gets you ONE unemployment check! --BenBurch 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
More: On 12/21 DP1976 (confirmed sock of BryanFromPalatine) edited the comments of 12ptHelvetica on a talk page, adding content HERE. Such actions strongly suggests that 12ptHelvetica is yet another sock of BryanFromPalatine. I look forward to the results of this investigation. SOCKDP1976's claims that three individuals, all working at the same location of a major corporation were having Wiki Editing Sessions in SOCKDP1976's office, taking turns editing Wiki on company time are amusing in their sheer outlandishness, but not very believable - F.A.A.F.A. 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Please note that the use of sockpuppets is not an automatic banning offense, but it is strongly discouraged. The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Abusive Sockpuppets — New accounts may be blocked for any length of time or permanently; sockpuppets for violating policy should be blocked permanently." Wikipedia:Blocking_policy.
IMHO, the unabated NPA and CIVIL violations by the two confirmed sock puppets, combined with Bryan's creation of SOCKDP1976 to evade a 3RR 24 hour block, combined with using socks to create a phony consensus and enagage in edit wars and endless challenges, combined the two sock's specious 'explanations' regarding their identities - mandate blocks for the two sockpuppets plus the associated shared IP. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Time to move on

With the departure of DP1976, there isn't a consensus in favor of making the changes FAAFA wants to make. I support removing the sentence in the lead that's based on Todd Brendan Fahey and the link to his article. The sentence that follows it is a repeat and should also be removed. Until we have a consensus on changes, I think Jossi and the admins should keep the lock on the page. It is my understanding that Bryan can still participate but if DP1976 shows up, then DP1976 and Bryan must be treated as one person. I remain open to any changes or suggestions Bryan offers to make. ArlingtonTX 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


The page you archived included info important to the ongoing editing and discussion. Please let the mediator Jossi do the archiving. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


FAAFA, are you really going to start an edit war over the archiving of a 400-acre Talk page? Everyone who's still participating in this is fully familiar with the info and the issues. But some of us have dialup connections, and will have trouble downloading your 10,000 word witch hunt. - 12ptHelvetica 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that you will no longer have to worry about this issue. --BenBurch 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

In the Free Republic#Terminology and subculture section, please delink [[Zot!]]. The link provided is to a comic book, not an article on the term "zot!," and therefore needn't be linked. Picaroon 02:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Was it Batman? - F.A.A.F.A. 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not Batman. Picaroon 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur. --BenBurch 03:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Picaroon 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sockpuppetry documentation VITAL to this discussion

User BryanFromPalatine (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) was confirmed as both a sockpuppet and puppeteer of DP1976 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

“ Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) ”

Findings

Note that 12ptHelvetica (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) was suspected of also being a sockpuppet of the main puppeteer BryanFromPalatine

EVIDENCE

BryanFromPalatine (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

At 17:49, on 9 December 2006 Puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was 3rr 24 HR blocked for excessive edits to Free Republic.

12ptHelvetica (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

At 22:10 on 9 December 2006 user 12ptHelvetica was created. His first edit was to Free Republic agreeing with 208.250.137.2 who is in fact 12ptHelvetica as documented in the sockpuppetry findings. His next post was a vote in a consensus agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of the sock crew. His next 4 edits were to Free Republic - all within the 24 hour block period of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine . Since these actions were so blatant and obvious, BenBurch warned him that he was a suspected sock puppet of BryanFromPalatine within an hour of his first post. After being accused of sockpuppetry, 12ptHelevetica did not post for the next 48 hours. 90%+ of his posts have been to Free Republic.

DP1976 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

At 22:32 on 10 December 2006 user DP1976, a confirmed sockpuppet of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was created. His first post (other than creating his user page) was a vote in a consensus, of course agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. Over 90% of DP1976's edits have been to Free Republic.

ArlingtonTX (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

At 21:07 on 10 December 2006 user ArlingtonTX was created.This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. His first post was responding to sockpuppetry charges by Ben Burch against puppeteer BryanFromPalatine. His second post was a vote in a consensus, agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. Every post of this user has been to Free Republic or to sock puppet cases related to his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine.

I am confident that an investigation will show that users ArlingtonTX and 12ptHelevetica are additional sockpuppets of the confirmed sockpuppeteer BryanFromPalatine who was shown to be the puppeteer of confirmed sockpuppet DP1976.

This blatant sockpuppetry mandates blocking of all the members of BryanFromPalatine's sock puppet army, all the related IP's, and especially puppeteer BryanFromPalatine himself.

NEW INVESTIGATION - F.A.A.F.A. 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that we have been joined by User:76.210.12.232 as another meatpuppet. --BenBurch 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:12ptHelvetica Indefinitely Blocked

Wikipedia:ANI#User:12ptHelvetica --BenBurch 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested input on lawsuit rewrite

I requested third party input on the lawsuit rewrite from editors involved with copyright issues on Wiki. Hopefully we'll get some. I was going to post an official RfC in "society, law and sex", but there weren't any law cases there, so I thought it better to post where I did. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Though, looking at the lawsuit from the standpoint of repressed sexuality would certainly be an original treatment...  ;-) --BenBurch 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving Sock Puppet Discussion

Now that the issue is all resolved, is there any objection to archiving this whole bloated sock-puppet discussion?--RWR8189 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Only one of the suspected 5 sock puppet accounts has been blocked. Until the investigation is complete, which may take 10 days, all this info is needed. The entire talk page also discusses the specifics of the mediation, agreements, proposals, etc. It's needed as well. Why do you appear to be 'siding' with the sock puppets by wanting to 'hide' their actions and the results of the official findings? - F.A.A.F.A. 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well excuse me FAAFA, my life doesn't revolve around your little sockpuppet thing, and I thought the whole thing was over. And I don't think it would be possible to hide the investigation anyways, its been plastered everywhere. Although you do appear to not be assuming good faith, that's for sure.--RWR8189 08:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I do concur that he ought to apologize for that. I don't see you siding with the sock puppets at least after you realized what they were. --BenBurch 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Describing a massive, WP violating sock puppet campaign to skew the POV of this article (to a POV which RWR happens to support) is not 'my little sockpuppet thing', it's a crtically important issue to everyone who cares about NPOV and Wiki's very integrity - and I consider that an insult. Please see 'time to move on' where I already stated my objections. By repeated the requests and goals of the 'Palatine Puppet Platoon' (my new neologism ;-) RWR was 'siding' with the socks. I hope it was unintentional. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has now been unprotected, I think the sockpuppet drama is over. I think a summary on this talk page of the actions taken and a link to the appropriate sockpuppet discussion pages would more than suffice, and the rest can be archived. However it seems we disagree about the importance of this sockpuppet thing in the course of human history. I am only restating my original suggestion that this page not turn into the sockpuppet page, when we have all sorts of other avenues for it to be posted at.--RWR8189 01:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I object to archiving the discussion on the sock puppets. I just got back from holiday to find the article is gutted and under edit protection. I'm trying to catch up, to see what has been removed, when, and why. My personal opinion is that, though some of the material could have been better written and some could have been better documented, any new entry will not be as informative as it was before. I get the sense some people have been trying to finesse WP to censor information they don't like. The end result is a non-informative entry on the subject. Before I am accused of bias, I think the same thing is going on with the DU entry, for the same reasons, just from the opposite political persuasion. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh no! I thought DU had settled down. --BenBurch 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DP1976 Indefinitely blocked - User:BryanFromPalatine blocked one week (maybe longer)

WP:ANI#Discussion_on_blocks --BenBurch 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Now that all that is sorted out, may be it is a good time to resume editing. Hope that editors that have kept their editing privileges intact, engage now in making this article better. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggested adding more of the 'good stuff' that FR does, like gifts and letters for the troops, but it appears that the FR supporters are more interested in deleting sourced criticism than adding positive material, so I guess I'll have to look for it and add it. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fahey in the Lead

I would renew my objections to the Fahey article being cited in the lead. Lewrockwell is not a reliable source, and the criticism itself is not particularly unique or notable. I think a generalized summary of criticism in the lead is sufficient as per WP:LEAD, but I don't think Fahey is the way to go.--RWR8189 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lewwockwell / Fahey link is fine - it's 'opinion' based on documented (per Salon article) fact, and collaborated by multiple sources. I supplied about 5 more links from the poltical right documenting FR / JR's radical two-year shift from Bush-hating to Bush-worshipping, and other similar changes at FR. These aren't claims from FR-hating lefties, so they are even more significant than if they were. These changes are fact.
Since you assert on the DU article talk page that forum owner quotes and assertions are germaine to articles (I don't - I think they're OR unless documented by secondary sources). I'm sure you won't mind if I include some of Jim Rob's notable quotes and assertions, like Bush being a 'cokehead and felon' invloved with CIA drug dealing (oops... that is documented in the Salon piece, so they're no arguing over that!), and that the US Gov was responsible for terrorist attacks on their own people. (no not 9/11) They actually claim the US gov was probably responsible for the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing! Of course Waco and Ruby Ridge were described as 'attacks' against innocent, peacable, law-abiding Americans! Contrails, Black Helicopters, NWO, FEMA, there's sooooo much... I don't know where to start! I'll get to work! Is a whole paragraph OK? - F.A.A.F.A. 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could include all of your favorite quotes on Jim Robinson (Internet guy)? But this isn't that article, this article is about Free Republic. Lewrockwell just isn't a reliable source, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth, there are plenty of other criticisms that meet reliability standards. And you know that all links from other non-notable blogs aren't includable either.--RWR8189 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but Lew_Rockwell.com is a highly notable and respected blog that because of its status as such is considered a RS, especially for criticism corroborated by multiple other right-wing sources. If it were an 'exceptional' claim that no one else alleged, I would agree with you, but there are DOZENS of other sources saying the same thing. It is widely alleged that JimRob rules Free Republic with an 'Iron Fist' and the forum certainly does have more of its 'owner's flavor' than many other political forums. His views and actions are therefore germaine. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is highly notable and respectable according to whom? Saying something doesn't make it true. An unreliable source corroborating other unreliable sources does not make a source any more reliable. All this speculation seems to seep with your POV.--RWR8189 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Its confirmed in the Salon piece. MY POV? LOL! Unlike many on the far right I don't consider JimRob a 'Socialist' because he now endorses many of Bush and the GOP's non-conservative positions in their quest to remain electable. (PLEASE nominate Brownback, Trancedo, or Hunter in 08 ;-)
WP:Reliable Sources "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view." - F.A.A.F.A. 10:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good, then let's use the Salon piece, not the Fahey one.--RWR8189 10:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That passage does not mean Lewrockwell satisfies WP:RS. This is an example of a self-published source used as a secondary source.--RWR8189 10:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah - it only covers JimRobs pre 2000 'nutty conspiracy theorist phase' when he called Bush a 'cokehead and felon who's involved with CIA drug dealing' and promised to 'take up arms' if he was elected - not his metamorphosis into the Bush-worshipper that he is today, along with his banning of anyone who criticises Bush 1/10th as strongly as he did pre-nomination. That's the REAL issue. - F.A.A.F.A.

I agree with RWR8189. Neither the Fahey article nor any material derived from it should be used in the lead. I also oppose the changes that F.A.A.F.A. has just made to the section on the Washington Post's lawsuit. F.A.A.F.A. has just been successful in removing User:DP1976 (who IMHO is an intellectual properties attorney) and 12ptHelvetica (who IMHO is an expert typesetter and forensic document analyst). Their experience and skills were very valuable in examining the more important events in the history of Free Republic for obvious reasons, and their input on this article will be missed. Now that he has removed the experts who have the knowledge to oppose him, F.A.A.F.A. believes that he owns the article. ArlingtonTX 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already been confirmed that both of those were sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. --BenBurch 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That isn't true. 12ptHelvetica is said to be a "POSSIBLE" sock puppet.
Not proven.
Not confirmed.
Not guilty.
Just "POSSIBLE."
Somebody around here said that you have well-sharpened skills at distortion and spin-doctoring. Who was it? ArlingtonTX 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term trolling evidence VITAL to this discussion

BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. are single-purpose accounts. (FAAFA initially used a different name.) Over 90% of their edits and Talk posts have been in pursuit of this agenda. Their agenda is to portray everything that is politically left-wing in a favorable light; portray everything that is politically conservative in a negative light, especially such activist organizations as Protest Warrior and Free Republic; and harass and intimidate anyone who gets in their way, going so far as to use modified warning templates and sock puppetry allegations as part of their campaign of intimidation.

This agenda is a direct defiance and deliberate undermining of the WP:NPOV philosophy. It is an attack on one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. There is either a cabal, sock puppet or meat puppet relationship between these two. ArlingtonTX 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just filed a formal complaint against them on the Administrators Noticeboard.

ANI complaint

I encourage others who have experienced their special brand of intimidation and harassment, on this page and on the Protest Warrior page, to join the investigation at the link I have provided above, and comment on your experiences with these two. ArlingtonTX 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Ben is well known for his website. I recognized his name from DU. We have both contributed to a wide range of articles, and unlike you, did not sign up right after confirmed sockpuppeteer User:BryanFromPalatine was blocked for violating 3RR casting suspicion on your motives and realtionship to him. I look forward to your investigation. Note than the anon IP that vandalized the talk page is based in Plano, 30 miles from Arlington. Note also that I wrote and added the whole paragraph of Free Republic's 'victory' over CodePink at Walter Reed, not something a POV warrior would likely do. My agenda is accuracy and truth. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Eight months of attacking conservatives, followed by one paragraph recognizing that conservatives occasionally win, does not an unbiased Wikipedia editor make. ArlingtonTX 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Bias is not disallowed. POV is. Most editors who focus on political articles have bias.Take a look at the Conspiracy Noticeboard and alleged associated 'cabal' for real evidence of bias. Can two people even be a cabal? I suggest you file a RfA. I survived a RfC largely unscathed and because of it became much less combative and contentious. Good luck with your investigation. It looks like you put a lot of work into it, but you filed it where it won't do any good. Go straight to an RfA. Was that you who posted from the anon IP in Plano? I hope not because I'm about to add it to the sockpuppet / meatpuppet investigation. Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between bias and POV. Let me call my cousin the barber and he can send over some more hairs for you to split. I'll say it this way then: you are forcing your bias into the article and damaging its NPOV. Is that clear enough? ArlingtonTX 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed your bold, red header because it's disruptive and unhelpful. On a related note, could you guys try to stop fighting eachother on this talk page (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground comes to mind) and work on improving the article instead? There's a whole section with only one citation. Picaroon 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I cannot find any RS for "Format and policy"

Can you? Yes, it is a good description of the site from my experiences, but it also appears to be original research. We cannot just be describing things here, we must be citing the descriptions of reliable sources. I will strike the section by tomorrow if nobody can find a description that can be referenced in a reliable source. --BenBurch 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. And yes, of course it can always be put back if a source is found subsequently. --BenBurch 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus against the Fahey material

There is a consensus against including the material based on Fahey. RWR8189 and I agree that it should not be included because Fahey doesn't satisfy the criteria of RS. Placing it in the lead of the article compounds the error. It should be removed immediately. This is not vandalism. This is consensus. ArlingtonTX 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps putting it in there has poor grammar skills. That doesn't help you. ArlingtonTX 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
1)From your assertions I surmise that you don't understand consensus. I respectfully suggest that you read it. 2) Jossi is an Admin who is involved with rewriting policies including RS. He is an expert on WP. He felt it satisfied RS or wouldn't have left it in. 3) Please stop insulting your fellow editors 4) Have a happy new year, and please don't drink and drive. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

And that includes you all! Don't drink & Drive! --BenBurch 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)