Talk:Free Republic/Archive 6

Recent criticism
From the Stony Brook Press on Dec 3, 2006:

"'Free Republic. HOLY CRAP IN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HANDBAG!!! The people of www.freerepublic.com are as psychotic as can possibly be. Now I understand that there are many conservatives that support Bush, the Iraq War, or other Bush Administration policies. But this site, its founders, and its posters take this America-worship to a new level! A new level of psycho has been achieved! Free Republic is another one of these blog sites, a right-wing one, but it’s different from the others, mainly because these people aren’t conservatives, nor are they neoconservatives. They are complete and total fascists. They abhor, though they won’t admit it, every value America was founded on. The moderator and founder, Jim Robinson, deletes any post that contradicts the opinion of himself, his members, and the Bush Administration. If you question any American policies (as long as they are Republican-made ones), you get banned. No questions asked.'"

More recent criticism of Free Republic Although I don't feel this material is inclusionable, its further corroboration of the statements in article concerning bannings and Bush backing. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

More criticism and praise
The reviews of FR on Amazon provide a good source of views from informed users on how they feel about FR. There are numerous reviews praising it and criticising it: A pro FR review:

"I have made over 4,000 posts on Free Republic. I am not a Republican. I am not a Bush Bot. I have argued against Republican statism, Bush diplomacy, the Supreme Court nominations, the Commerce Clause decision, The Patriot Act, the WOT, the WOD, and the culture wars of the Christian right.

I have never been accused of being a troll or zotted. Free Republic is not a Republican forum. It is a Conservative forum and there are just as many Libertarian Conservatives as Republicans on Free Republic. There are even a few bleeding heart Liberals who have been posting there for years.

No other political forum has the diversity that Free Republic has. Those who complain of being zotted or branded trolls are almost always guilty of racism or personal attacks on others. Anti-semitic white power types get zotted immediately, those with legitimate complaints about the government of Israel do not.

An anti FR review: "FreeRepublic, back in the Clinton days, used to be the premiere news forum. A true government watchdog full of reasoned debate and rational thought. Now, it's basically a Bush cheerleading site. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Back before election 2000, site owner Jim Robinson was very vocal in his dislike of Bush, even calling him a coke user and threatening armed revolt should Bush get elected. Now, however, posters who dare criticize Bush in any way are censored or banned. Old-time posters are being banned or leaving in droves, usually around the quarterly "Freep-a-thon" (fundraiser).

In fact, Robinson has openly declared that the goal of FreeRepublic is to re-elect Bush. This would seem to nullify their claims to be a a non-profit site (which wouldn't be allowed to promote political candidates), and throws their "fair use" justification for posting copyrighted articles into doubt.

It's really with a heavy heart I write those words. FreeRepublic, in my mind, could have changed the world. Now it's just an official web presence for the RNC."

Amazon user reviews of FR

Obviously, the allegations that FR and JR have become nothing more than rubber stamps for Bush, The Neocons and and the GOP is a divisive and hotly contested issue, and its as hotly contested right here, if the objections of the FR members and supporters are to be understood that they deny this as fact. I'm not sure if this is the case as they have objected to the Fahey info as being Non RS, but haven't argued that its untrue. (AFAIK) How do we solve this difference of opinion? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, RS is bedrock Either it is or it isn't RS.  The concept being that if we concern ourselves with RS and V and NPOV we will eventually approximate the truth.  If it isn't RS, then obviously it does not belong in the article.  However, I think it likely is RS.  --BenBurch 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User reviews at Amazon.com are not reliable sources, for very obvious reasons. You may only say that Amazon.com reviews exist, but that's about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we say something like "many Amazon reviews of Free Republic from those who claim to be members or ex-members corroborate the claims of bannings, censorship, and FR's and JR's shift from anti-Bush to pro-Bush, but many also deny it" with a link? ( I don't think we need it - just wondering ) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you could say anything like that. The sources are not reliable. I will again repeat the fact that Fahey is unreliable, and I'm editing out any material that's based on his scribblings.(removed BLP violations) FAAFA
 * Your claim that "Jossi left it in, therefore it must be RS" is a complete failure because the first thing you did when Jossi posted that so-called "compromise" version was to start editing the section about the LA Times lawsuit. He put that section in there, but you immediately started advocating changes. So it's clear that you don't believe Jossi's opinions were chiseled on stone tablets on Mt. Sinai.


 * Find a reliable source for these claims.


 * Find a reliable source for these claims.


 * Find a reliable source for these claims.


 * How many times do I have to say that? Banned Freepers are, by definition,  NOT reliable sources. Remember, it's human nature to keep the good and get rid of the bad. When Jim Robinson banned them, it's reasonable to conclude that he was getting rid of the bad.


 * Among the ranks of the banned Freepers are the dregs of the extreme right-wing. The conspiracy theorists (like Fahey), the misfits, the anti-Semitic, the white supremacists, incorrigible trolls, racists and Klansmen. Are these the people you trust? There's one who posted an implied death threat against the Clintons. There's another who posted personal information about the manager of Chuy's restaurant. Do you really think these people are going to be honest about the reasons why they were banned?


 * In this case as much as any other, perhaps more than any other, you need a  RELIABLE SOURCE. Fahey isn't going to serve as a placeholder until you find one. If you find one, we can always put that sentence back in. ArlingtonTX 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response not merited. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V is not negotiable. The Amazon reviews and the Fahey piece have no place in this article.--RWR8189 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Banned Freepers, as a group, are no less reliable than current Freepers. Neither should be used unless they are part of a reliable source. Amazon user book reviews are not reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology and subculture sources?
Surely somebody has published a FR Lexicon somewhere that is RS-V? I cannot find one. Otherwise I'll try to document each term individually. --BenBurch 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt something like that could be found in a RS. The closest thing I could find was [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689962/posts this], and whether it satisfies WP:RS is questionable.--RWR8189 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. I needed a laugh, and I got one when I read that in August 06, Freepers were still living in fear of 'The Clenis' and are still tin-foil hat wearing, black helicopter and contrail seeing moonbats ;-) '"Arkancide = Mysterious death that somehow manages to happen to former friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton / CDS = Clinton Death Squad / FOB = Friend of Bill, someone who gets special favors for doing Clintons dirty work, but sometimes end up dead" - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More Fahey discussion
Todd Brendan Fahey is a RS as is Lew Rockwell.com  "(LRC) is a paleolibertarian web magazine run by Lew Rockwell, Burton Blumert, and others associated with the Center for Libertarian Studies. The site, which is also closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute"

Fahey 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."

He is also one of the most respected experts regarding CIA drug and 'mind control' experiments. Fahey on CIA Drug Experiments, and helped debunk the claims of a disturbed woman who alleged that she was a CIA 'mind control' victim, and that Dick Cheney kept her sister hostage as a sex slave in a cheap and tawdry hotel room somewhere. (A true patriot to clear 'Dead Eye' Dick's impugned reputation!) As I argued, if Fahey were making an 'exceptional' claim, like Jim Rob is an Alien from Planet Xenu, I would agree with you, but he is documenting 'generally accepted truths' corroborated by dozens of other sources, that unlike Fahey and Rockwell, aren't RS V sources, but add to the veracity of his claims. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you convinced me. --BenBurch 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was easy. Fahey's self-serving bio was already posted here. But since reviewing his self-promotion efforts convinced you so easily, you should read the negative things that he brags about. For all practical purposes, he is self-published. After every publishing house in New York rejected his first novel, he founded his own publishing company. He seems to be proud of the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol he's used, and describes himself as a propagandist. "While I sucked lungsful of blonde Lebanese hash in London ..." 


 * I have a deeply-embedded fear of being 'straight.' I'll be frank about it. I have been enamored of chemicals since my childhood and it is surely the bane of my existence. I lost my wife over it just this past year. I love her and respect her enough to have finally told her, 'l can't promise I will change & a promise is what you want.' So, we divorced after 5 1/2 years of a rewarding and tumultuous marriage. She did not know about my LSD intake during the writing of Wisdom's Maw. I hid it from her - an LSD addicton that sometimes went for 40 days in a row ...
 * My relationship with chemicals is an uncomfortable one. To be very honest I am either bored of the "sober life," or else it scares the shit out of me. I don't know which. From the age of seventeen, I don't think I've been straight more than a week at any given period. My survival is a testament to the strength of the human will. I had a hideous relationship with alcohol from 1982-1986 (from the age of 17 to a wizened 22, when I went through rehab.) I relapsed to the bottle in '93, after about the 120th rejection of Wisdom's Maw. I 'drank-to- die' until Thanksgiving of '95 - a fifth of Wild Turkey a day. ...
 * I wrote my first book-length nonfiction 'novel' - a thing called Hell Bottled Up: Chronicles of a Late Propaganda Minister - in 1988, in my first semester at USC. Wrote it in a white-heat in six months, basically smashed on acid. ... So, I went to Amsterdam, started getting REALLY out of my head, like I hadn't in several years. (For the record, I stopped eating LSD in the summer of 1994 and, Bog willing, I will never pick up the habit again. Too many reminders. Too much psychic trauma. I'll probably do it again, 'cause I did it in Amsterdam - some incredibly pure & powerful stuff - but not as a "means of writing.")

This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

Publication at LewRockwell.com is also no guarantee that Fahey is reliable. While it has published articles by many reliable people, it has also published articles by unreliable people:


 * Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute has criticized the blog for carrying columns by controversial figures, such as Gary North, whom Palmer calls "one of the oddest of oddballs" (North has called for the stoning of homosexuals and women who have abortions) and Joseph Sobran, who, he writes, "speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review". Sobran was fired from National Review by William F. Buckley following a furor over Sobran's opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and what some considered to be anti-semitism.

-- BryanFromPalatine 11:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have another source (a notable RS V print magazine) that confirms these allegations and more, which I'll post later. (that CIA LSD experiment documentation is staggering, huh?) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

New RS V Source
"Chronicles_(magazine) is a U.S. monthly magazine published by the paleoconservative Rockford Institute. Its full current name is Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.  The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism and anti-intervention stances within conservative politics. The editor is Thomas Fleming; the executive editor is Scott P. Richert. Aaron D. Wolf is associate editor, and Chilton Williamson is the senior editor for books.  Chronicles was founded in 1976, soon after the Institute's establishment earlier that year."

I found this article (published in the Dec 2002 issue) a few weeks ago, but mistakingly thought that it was only a forum post.

Notable quotes:

"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."

"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..."

"Many banned Freepers have turned to such sites as Liberty Post (www.libertypost.org) and Liberty Forum (www.libertyforum.org) where members can post articles from anywhere and comment without interference from the thought police or fear of Siberian banishment."

The article was posted on FR:

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/793011/posts?page=51,50 Link on FR]

More posts on it, and related.

an article on this article

another cached source

Discussion on Liberty Post - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At first blush it seems to be a better article with less questions over reliability.--RWR8189 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FAAFA, if you're going to rely on the Chronicles article, I'm confident that you will be honest and NPOV enough to include the following excerpt from said article prominently: "Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." It is believed that such "agents provocateurs" were responsible for the Chuy's incidents and many other examples that at first glance, would seem to be the very sort of thing that would feed your "criticism and controversy" section. BryanFromPalatine 12:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BenBurch, when you reverted my changes, you posted one line on the History page: "Restore consensus version - Fahey material is a RS and appears in a RS print journal." But your changes went far beyond that, and there is no consensus supporting Fahey as a RS; at best, the consensus is 50/50 with you and FAAFA on one side, and RWR8189 and I on the other side. And since FAAFA has already found the far more reliable Chronicle article, why would you continue to rely on the proudly drug-addled Fahey as your so-called reliable source?


 * If you're going to insist on starting a revert war over Todd Brendan Fahey, at least do me the courtesy of explaining why you would insist on using him, when a far more reliable source has been found by your inseparable friend and ally, FAAFA. As RWR8189 said two days ago, "WP:V is not negotiable. The Amazon reviews and the Fahey piece have no place in this article." WP:RS isn't negotiable either.


 * I would like to work with you on this. There is clearly a consensus that accepts Chronicle as RS, but if you continue to post your Fahey nonsense, and until you base the material you want to add on Chronicle or some other RS, I must treat such reversions as vandalism and respond accordingly. -- BryanFromPalatine 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bryan, I would have hoped that you read up on WP while you were blocked for sockpuppetry. Your edits to the intro and OR show that you didn't. The intro is supposed to suffice as a short 'stand alone' article, not be a place to hash out claims and counterclaims. Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone other than genuine members made the Chuy's threats, and when I asked you to supply some, you suggested that I ask a FR sysop. By the way, WHY are you editing this article from two accounts, your BFP account, and the IP 209 account? You've been officially convicted as a sockpuppet and puppeteer. You should be more careful - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FAAFA, I've read up on Vandalism and when you defy consensus like that, it's vandalism. I've just reverted your vandalism. Your claim that Fahey is RS is not supported by consensus. If you simply must include claims that FR has "changed course" from anti-Bush to pro-Bush, is "not conservative" and has banned a lot of good members for simply criticizing Bush (or whatever) then base such material on reliable sources. WP:RS is not negotiable. You have just produced a reliable source at long last: the Chronicles article. Fahey was used as a placeholder in violation of WP:RS, but that is now behind us. Build your encyclopedic material from the Chronicles article. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I observe that you've reverted again, going back to the old version with the misspelled words. And you've removed the quotations from Chronicles magazine, which you've just finished introducing as a RS! What's wrong? Have you changed your mind about its reliability so suddenly? I'm getting some administrators involved in response to your efforts to vandalize this article. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Why are you editing this article from two accounts? Didn't you read WP:SOCK while you were blocked for sockpuppetry? Your consensus claims are fallacious as it would now have to be described as 3 to 2 for Fahey with Picaroon joining me and BB (That's not 'consensus' but I'm using your understanding so you can relate)  - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any statements from Picaroon for or against Fahey as RS. Nor do I see any such statements by Lawyer2b, so I didn't include him either. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  -- BryanFromPalatine 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (please stop)

Some advice that editors may consider. See WP:NPOV. Using attribution, sometime helps give context to our readers. In particular is a statement is contentious, describing who makes that statement, can help our readers reach their own conclusions about it. I do not want to get into the discussion of this person Fahey is a reliable source or not, as that may be not the issue. Please consider evaluating if that source represents a "significant" viewpoint instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "agents provocateurs" thing especially, while it might be a notable and reliable statement, does not belong in the opening paragraph if it comes from a biased source. Also, this is a good place to use WP:3O instead of revert warring. Ashibaka (tock) 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The agents provocateurs statement is a statement of fact, not susceptible to spin-doctoring. Either so-called "leftists" have done it, or they haven't. Absent some showing of bias on the part of this particular author, it should stay.


 * Fahey is neither RS nor a significant viewpoint. After being rejected by every publishing house in New York over the course of two years, he started his own publishing company; that, and starting his own Web pages, is the only reason he's published at all. His self-promoting "bio" is unverified. He persistently engages in bragging about the variety and quantity of illegal drugs and alcohol he has used. The fact that a witness is a drug addict or alcoholic may be used in court to impeach the credibility of the witness. US v. Cheatwood, (10th Cir. 2002), No. 00-6401; US v. Contreras-Castellanos, (10th Cir. 2003), No. 02-8062.


 * If FAAFA insists on adding one of Fahey's statements, then readers should be educated about what sort of person Fahey is. They should know that he hasn't spent seven consecutive days sober since he was 17, and that he has used LSD for 40 consecutive days. They should know that he describes himself as a "propaganda minister" and a "conspiracy theorist." Then Jossi's suggestion on attribution would work out. Otherwise, since the average person has never heard of Fahey (and for good reason), simply naming the source doesn't mean much. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

more criticism needed. The FR members and supporters here have agreed that this article should be similar to that of Democratic Underground as far as criticism. Take a look at that criticism section vs this one. They have cherry picked the most offensive quotes and included them verbatim like "The wife of former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards allegedly criticized members who did not feel compassion for Laura Ingraham in her fight with breast cancer. Comments about Ingraham's cancer reportedly included: "She Probably Gave it to Herself," "All that Hate, Lies, Anger," and "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes documented actions like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in the article) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. The lawsuit info doesn't count towards 'crticism' either. It's not the members fault that Jim Rob encouraged them to ignore copyright. Where's the parity? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes documented actions like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in the article) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. It was written up by Jossi that way. The lawsuit info doesn't count towards 'crticism' either. Perhaps not, but it counts toward "controversy." Criticism and controversy, grouped together, add up to no more than 25% of the DU and Kos articles. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We can move all but one sentence to the LAT vs FR article then. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Jihad Against Chuy's" article on Salon is linked as a reference. If the reader wants to know what was said, he can click on the link. This is an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive inventory of everything that was ever said at FR that offends delicate left-wing sensibilities. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on the lead, Ashibaka
Thank you. That works for me. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not for me. Plenty of documentation of individual threats coming from actual FR members, (see Clinton death threats below) and NO documented threat is tied to a 'troll'.

proposed quotes to include:

"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" Posted on June 10, 1999 Free Republic Death Threats

"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]

Any objections? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I object. I'm sure RWR8189 will object as well. American Politics is not a RS. It is hopelessly biased against conservatives, as other passages from the site (as well as the sidebars) demonstrate with painful clarity. This same article was discussed previously on these Talk pages and it was shot down in flames. Furthermore, American Politics isn't even the original source of the article. It's TJWalker.com -- which went "Error 404" so long ago that the domain name has been reassigned to a media group. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Foot in mouth again ! That website IS TJ Walker's - the same TJ Walker who wrote the article. The SAME TJ Walker whose article appears here on CBS NEWS TJ Walker - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it's the same TJ Walker? Show me. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, Let me get this straight, Bryan
You seriously believe that the truth of the matter is that Free Republic has been infested with enemies who are sufficiently able to sound like a coherent whatever-it-is-that-you-think-you are-there to avoid a speedy zot, but who are also the source of all extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic? Do you then also believe that America is still infested with Soviet deep-cover agents waiting for their "Manchurian Candidate" phone call? How about the Tooth Fairy? --BenBurch 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your mockery is duly noted. "[A]ll extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic?" No, of course not. Some of it? Yes. The reliable source, Chronicles, that has just been unearthed by your faithful friend and inseparable companion FAAFA has confirmed it. My sources indicate that the Chuy's incident was caused by a "leftist ... agent provocateur." But since it's OR, I'm not going to claim in the article that this particular incident was caused by a leftist AP. If I can find a reliable source, however ... -- BryanFromPalatine 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So unlike the fifty cents the tooth fairy left under your pillow, you have no proof whatsoever about your fairy tale? --BenBurch 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins are watching. It's a good thing.
Chronicles states that during the late 1990s "[l]eftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." This is the same magazine that your friend FAAFA has just introduced as a reliable source. That is sufficient proof that SOME of the FR activities that have been criticized were the work of "leftist ... agents provocateurs." There's your fifty cents. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Threat noted. --BenBurch 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So when you do it, it's all right; but when I do it, it's a threat? -- BryanFromPalatine 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OR: BFP, please explain how this addition isn't OR. I need a good laugh. "It is possible that many of these incidents may have been the fault of such leftist ... agents provocateurs." Why are you editing this article from two accounts, BFP, and IP 209? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a statement of fact. Since Chronicles identified the existence of "leftist ... agents provocateurs," it is possible that any given incident of extremism, or inappropriate calls to action, could have been made by one of them. Chronicles is YOUR reliable source. Regarding IP 209, I've read WP:SOCK. Then I read it again. And again. You should as well. First of all, an IP address is not an account. Second, I did not use it in an abusive fashion. Even if (by some desperate stretch of the imagination) IP 209 could be described as a sock puppet "account," only sock puppets that are used in an abusive fashion are Wiki violations.


 * I hereby claim all edits today from the IP 209 address as my own. There was no effort to sway consensus.


 * Happy now? -- BryanFromPalatine 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chronicles article is not a reliable source (as, say, the New York Times would be) but closer to an opinion. If we grant that it's a notable opinion, it should be restated with attribution to its owner, as I just did. Ashibaka (tock) 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Chronicles is a printed magazine published for the last 30 years. It is RS V. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks credit FR for 'boycott'
IMHO this issue is a significant part of FR history and should be included. It also speaks to how significant FR is in the blogoshere, and even outside the blogoshere.

I haven't seen the documentary 'Shut Up and Sing' yet, but understand that it either credits (or blames, depending on your POV) FR for the 'boycott' against them. I hear that it even includes screen shots of FR posts and a discussion of FR, after Jim Rob refused to be interviewed for the documentary.

This is what was said on 'Hardball' :


 * Matthews: "Well, who were the people that were, let me go back to Natalie, who started this all because you were the voice that spoke? Who went out there and really tried to exploit this against you? Were there any commercial forces that compete with you that said, here's a chance to bring down the Dixie Chicks and, and take the money they'd be getting? I know it sounds Machiavellian but that's the way I am. I'm thinking who is gaining by your demise?"


 * Natalie Maines: "Well, personally, I think the Right did. And I think it was originally started by the Free Republic. And they were very organized in calling radio stations across the country and telling them that they would never listen to their station, when they didn't even live in that town. And we knew that. And at the beginning our manager tried to explain that to some program directors and they were not willing to listen." SOURCE

I'll write a prospective paragraph about this tonight. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am again reverting your vandalism
I have again reverted your vandalism of this page. Your changes are not supported by consensus. There was no discussion of any changes at all after Ashibaka's last edit. Discuss your proposed changes and then we will reach a consensus for or against them. Don't continue to ignore the participation of RWR8189 or my participation, or Ashibaka's, or Jossi's. If you continue to vandalize the consensus version that Administrator Ashibaka posted, I will report you for your vandalism, and seek to have you blocked. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no consensus supporting reduction of the lawsuit section, there has never been a consensus supporting Todd Fahey as a reliable source, and there is no consensus supporting the inclusion of APJ as a reliable source. I oppose all three of these edits. By posting the version that he posted, Ashibaka opposed the use of Fahey as a RS. There has been no showing that this "TJ Walker" is the same TJ Walker on CBS News and the National Review. Do you think it's impossible that there's more than one writer out there named "TJ Walker"? Don't start pretending that it's November 15, when the DU alumni were making this into a hit piece. It must be balanced, and it must have reliable sources. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine blocked yet again.
Two weeks for "General Disruption" BenBurch 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did they block the associated IP's too??? If not, I'm sure we'll see another 'friend' or 'family member' show up and start editing! (not to mention new Anon IP users) After reading his latest 'explanations' in response to confirmed sockpuppet findings, I am convinced that he must that think everybody on Wiki, including all the admins are a bunch of gullible rubes! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, careful. Prodego talk  02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but I have no doubt we haven't heard the end this. --BenBurch 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fahey as a reliable source?
I've received a complaint that one editor is attempting to cite an unreliable source at this article. What exactly is the argument? Durova Charge 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro

 * Pro Fahey argument here It's important to note that these are not 'exceptional claims'. I supplied close to a dozen NON RS V sources like blogs and forum posts confirming these 'generally accepted truths' regarding Free Republic. Here's the article.Link

Here's the gist of the claims:

''"dating back to the [2000] GOP primary Presidential campaigns – it appears to many that the "independent, grassroots conservatism" emphasis has been replaced by a rank-and-file boostership for the Republican National Committee and all that President Bush sees fit to offer for the nation – an increasingly liberal (Big Government) vision, in the eyes of many "grassroots conservatives."

Corroborated by another WRITTEN RS V source, Chronicles Magazine Talk:Free_Republic saying:

"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..." - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Con

 * comment here


 * As the complainant has been blocked for two weeks, I'll try to make his argument here; 1. Fahey is not possibly a Reliable Source because Fahey is a substance abuser.  2. The fact that LewRockwell.com, otherwise acknowledged to be a RS, printed Fahey's piece does not confer RS status to Fahey.  BenBurch 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We now have a source that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS in the Chronicles article, there is no longer a reason to rely on the Lewrockwell article of dubious reliability. I disagree that Lewrockwell is even a reliable source to begin with, it seems to be little more than a blog, and fails WP:RS.


 * This quote from upthread further brings reliability into doubt:
 * Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute has criticized the blog for carrying columns by controversial figures, such as Gary North, whom Palmer calls "one of the oddest of oddballs" (North has called for the stoning of homosexuals and women who have abortions) and Joseph Sobran, who, he writes, "speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review". Sobran was fired from National Review by William F. Buckley following a furor over Sobran's opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and what some considered to be anti-semitism


 * As noted by Durova, all of those credentials do not necessarily make Fahey reliable on this subject.--RWR8189 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis
Well, being a Ph.D. candidate in English literature counts for something in the field of English literature. Other than that he appears to be mostly self-published. If he writes for a reliable source (such as a freelance feature in a reputable magazine) then that would be acceptable here. Otherwise no-go. His general sobriety doesn't interest me per se. Durova Charge 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I should specify: specific content he publishes in reliable sources is acceptable, but not related content he may self-publish or publish in otherwise unreliable venues. Durova Charge 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)]
 * I ask that Jossi weigh in with his thoughts as well, as he is actively involved with rewriting RS + V to ATT. If he agrees with you I won't pursue including Fahey. IMHO, WP on RS + V is in need of serious repair. 'Reporters' who have been published multiple times, but who have been proven to be unreliable, or even conspiracy theorists (Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie come to mind) are cited and linked to hundreds of times on Wiki, even though their conspiracy theories regarding Iraq and WMD, and Saddam bombing Oklahoma City have been denied be the US Gov (which officially makes them conspiracy theorists) and are accepted as RS V sources, but a reporter who has not been published much, but never proven wrong is not. Only when ARBCOM judges a source unreliable (who else besides LaRouche is on this list anyway? A few Holocaust deniers - who else? (I hope David Icke)) are they officially deemed 'unreliable' even if extensively published. Here's one of Fahey's hard news stories. Link Thanks for your help Durova, even if we do disagree :-) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology again
I readded the terminology again and will add the FR link as a ref. Since we are using FR as an uncontested RS for something as important as 'budget' when there have been allegations of serious financial irregularities including hundreds of thousands of dollars raised and squandered in the LAT V FR lawsuit, and $110,000 wasted alone when their lawyer filed the claim in the wrong state, Clarity Hilarity How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be removed, since it isn't really relevant in an encyclopedia article on the forum. It is more fitting for a guide to the site, and it doesn't really contribute anything to the article, Prodego  talk  21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. BenBurch 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Current issues
I think we need to remove the weasel words from the intro, specifically "The site has also been controverisal for what their critics consider inappropriate calls to action posted by some of its by members". Unless Freepers support death threats, which are RS V sourced, there's no need to include that, and it's actually weasely - right?
 * Issue #1


 * issue #2

RWR1989 good to see you back! On Dec 20 in mediation, you agreed that the crticism section be modeled after that of the Democratic Underground article. Since then, you have introduced several sourced quotes from DU members into the criticism section of that article, such as " Comments about Ingraham's cancer reportedly included: "She Probably Gave it to Herself," "All that Hate, Lies, Anger," and "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes the documented words and actions of FR members, like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in several articles) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. Obviously, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' so we need to include some actual quotes in the FR criticism section, correct? I suggest '"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!"' OK? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an amazingly bad idea to include the text of explicit death threats in either the DU or FR articles; most immediately relevant is that they serve to unfairly prejudice the reader against the subject of the article. Then we have copyright concerns, BLP concerns, WP:RS concerns (i.e. giving space in an encyclopedia to the idiot writing the death threats by proxying the threats through reporters of arguable reliability themselves); perhaps even Secret Service concerns (and for the record that's not a legal threat). I went to the DU page and summarized the threats just like I did on the FR page, and will be monitoring that page as well. - Merzbow 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a shining example of good sense, impartiality and fairness! Thanks for your help. I look forward to more. The DU article still has the member quote hoping that Reagan 'Rots in hell', (A RWR addition AFAIK) and there's nothing of the sort here. What should we do? (as I'm sure you've figured out, both articles have the same DU and FR members and supporters (and detractors) editing them - editors who might have an unintentional COI) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I went and summarized the Reagan comments too, and there was one other. - Merzbow 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

removed budget claim and link. I removed the link to the 'budget' and claims regarding it. Apparently, the link went to the FR donation page (it never loaded for me) which is a clear WP violation along with being non RS V for an issue that has been a 'bone of contention' to some former FR-members turned critics. (I don't know how that was EVER accepted) I don't think we need to document the alleged $30,000 misappropriated by the FR member whose past criminal record ('17 time convicted felon') was known to FR management who allegedly authorized her appointment to a position to handle money. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Influencing polls
I do believe something should be included about how users at the Free Republic will urge others to 'freep' a poll, to change the results of it so it reflects their viewpoint. - Jarn 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it should. That information was in the article for a long time.  I see no explanation for its deletion, so I'll restore it to the article. JamesMLane t c 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a good cite for that fact. --BenBurch 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found one, but it's in German and I think it requires a subscription. I don't know, because I don't read German. It's linked to here. I'm not sure of the rules for sourcing, but could we use FR itself as a source? [www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=freep%20this%20poll This page], for example? But if it used to be in the article and no longer is, couldn't it just be restored? - Jarn 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm using but I keep getting distracted.  Of course, the same point is in the DU article without any citation. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs a citation there, too! :-) --BenBurch 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the information in the cite about some people voting hundreds of times, I hope that is alright. - Jarn 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Its true and its in the reference. --BenBurch 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kynouria blocked indefinitely
Another sock of --BenBurch 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen another editor, other than Scientologists and LaRouchians, defend an article and topic like BFP defends FR! (no offense to Scientologists or LaRouchians) How many socks has he created? 5? 6? He did express great admiration and respect for a woman who claimed she was a 'mind control' victim. Hmmmmmm. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please mind Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. There is no need to comment like that on Bryan, even if he is violating the sock puppetry policy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Picaroon 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He's a confirmed WP violating sockpupeteer with numerous confirmed puppets. I will try not to violate NPA again (if I did), but WP mandates that I should no longer should AGF regarding his participation. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that as a personal attack at all. It was a pretty clear exposition of the truth.  BFP started out here with no AGF for any of those who were editing this article whom he disagreed with, but no, that does not allow us to do the same to him.  But even so, look at how things ended up for him.  Blocked.  Disgraced.  And he failed to impose his POV on this article. --BenBurch 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you've just returned from a 24-hour block for edit warring in this article, I'm sure you know what it's like to be blocked and disgraced. - ClemsonTiger 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Nope.  I wasn't blocked any time recently.  Try again. (Just a clue.  This is 2007) --BenBurch 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But you know what it's like to be blocked and disgraced. There's nothing like experiencing it first hand - ClemsonTiger 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 Hrs? Minor infraction, like a speeding ticket.  Disgraced is when you evade blocks by sockpuppeting and create a whole sockpuppet army, get investigated, caught, get your whole sockpuppet army (with one exception I note) banned permanently and then garner three weeks of block because you constitutionally cannot obey the rules.  A 3RR block is supposed to be a correction - I took the hint, BryanFromPalatine did not.  Or don't they teach ethics at Clemson any more? --BenBurch 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ben, NPA (again). Calm down, and all of you should try to make this article as NPOV as possible, even if you think FR is the best/worst site on the internet. Prodego  talk  20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am STILL looking for some well sourced praise of FR to balance this article.  Care to help me find some?  I wish I still had Lexis/Nexis available to me.  Maybe the Wiki Foundation will one day have that available to researchers.  --BenBurch 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we don't make articles NPOV by balancing them, we do it by making sure that everything shows an objective view of it all. We present information neutrally. Take a look at the article 'Nazi Germany', for example. Notable criticism should be mentioned, and explained, but it should not be a section against the subject. Prodego  talk  21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is my vision for this article too, but I am sensitive that, since all we can find is essentially negative. it looks like an attack piece even though that isn't the intention. If I could find some actual positive thing about FR in an RS-V source I would be happier with the result.  Sadly, politics breeds more criticism than praise. --BenBurch 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say costing Dan Rather his job is pretty darn positive, but that's just me. :) - Merzbow 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That cuts both ways, so it's not an unmitigated positive. There must be SOMETHING great that FR has done, like sending ballistic armor to the troops or similar that has Main Stream mentions and which would be a good positive for this article, but I cannot find it!  All I find are negatives, and I know that there must be another side to this. BenBurch 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Read my comments on the Dixie Chicks ban a few sections up. I have't had a chance to look for RS V sources yet. It does speak to FR's 'power' though. I think there also must be some RS V discussion about how amazingly popular they are, in terms of web traffic, and that is notable too. The issue of FR's contribution to the Killian memos is disputed. Most sources (even conservative sources) credit Powerline and LGF a lot more than they do FR. - Fairness And Accuracy Dan Rather 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on that. FR was a minor player or cheerleader in the Killian matter, but I am content to allow the current characterization of it here unless others object. BenBurch 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A "minor player or cheerleader"? Ivor Tossell of the Globe and Mail said that "it was central to the network of websites that uncovered the forged memos about Bush's Vietnam service that appeared on CBS News and ultimately cost Dan Rather his job." He makes it sound more like a quarterback than a cheerleader to me. You've used Mr. Tossell's quotes to say, "the worst site on the Internet, political-rhetoric division" and "an exercise in political extremism that, despite being something of an anthropological train wreck, keeps popping up square in the mainstream." If Mr. Tossell is reliable enough for that purpose, then he's reliable enough to describe Free Republic as "central" in the Rathergate episode, instead of a "minor player or cheerleader." Wouldn't you agree? - ClemsonTiger 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's another selective use of sources that I've observed after a review of the extensive archives of this Talk page. You feel that Sean Scanlon is reliable enough to say, in the lead of the article, "The website and its founder have generated controversy for their alleged post 9/11 shift away 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." However, you evidently don't feel that he is reliable enough to say, "leftist ... agents provocateurs" anywhere in the article at all. What's wrong with this picture? It's a reasonable question, in my opinion and not intended as a personal attack. - ClemsonTiger 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ClemsonTiger (suspected sock puppet of BryanFromPalatine ) : all political sites have trolls from the 'other side' so its not unique to FR thus not even worth mentioning if we're only going to include a couple sentences like you want, plus the Tossel article did not claim that these trolls were responsible for any of the death threats from FR members like you tried to claim in your edits adding this info. Why don't you find something about WH PRMeister Tony Snow being a Freeper when he was still with Fox? That's kind of impressive. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * People who are not familiar with political sites are not aware that "all political sites have trolls from the 'other side.' " It's only fair to educate them. Educating people is one of the primary functions of an encyclopedia. I'm not familiar enough with Free Republic or its members to say anything about Tony Snow, but it seems to me that a review of the article for objectivity is called for. Prodego asks a good question: Is it objective? For example, where did the phrase "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" come from? Is that an objective summary of what Scanlon wrote? Understand that I'm only trying to improve the article. - ClemsonTiger 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is ALIPAC's web site a reliable source for an editorial about Free Republic?
I note the recent addition of a comment about purges and a link to an article on that site. Comments please? --BenBurch 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a blog/foum and not notable enough, or RS V to include. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Snow as FR Poster
Here's one RS V source about Tony Snow's participation on FR. Tony Snow on FR There are a lot more mentions, but all I found were blogs. It appears that after he got the WH job, they deleted all his FR posts, but many are archived. With posts like this about his boss, it's no wonder. ''"He (Bush) inhabits a political Oz, where the colors are happy and the tough decisions can wait until the oracle speaks. When he stumbles over abstruse matters of foreign policy, for instance, he actually jokes about his cluelessness." "This is how frat boys behave when they know the class nerd is going to take their exams for them."'' OUCH! (he's got an amazing command of the English language. I'd never heard of the word 'abstruse', and thought it might have been a misspelling of 'obtuse'. New word! Thanks Tony! ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For President Bush 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FR as a reliable source for Wikipedia
I just noticed that Free Republic is used as a source for hundreds of articles. In some cases it is used as a convenience link to copyrighted articles from other sources which may or may not be otherwise available on the web.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/939567/posts] In other cases, it is used as a direct source.[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b9029683567.htm] I'm not sure that either use is justifiable. Are there other opinions about this? -Will Beback · † · 03:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As per policy, partisan websites can only be used as sourced for articles about these partisan websites. And convenience links to such partisan websites can be used only in very specific situations, or not at all. A cleanup of these should be undertaken by involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As things are now FR probably can't be used as a reliable source. Which is a shame since FR probably has one of the largest archives of online news stories anywhere.--RWR8189 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of which are copyvios. I have deleted a bunch of these links, leaving some in EL sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost all are/were copyvios. They were known for their flagrant disregard of copyright law: "A recent case, Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, illustrates these points. An Internet bulletin board operator posted articles from the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post on its site. The defendant, Free Republic, Fresno, California, operates www.freerepublic.com, on which members post [full text] news articles with their comments for others to read and discuss. The federal court found that this was not a fair use." fair use and online copying - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even for the copyright material FR presents, it is still not a good source. Ignoring the copyvio issues entirely, how does anybody know that the copy posted is faithful?  I think all of those references have got to go!  And this is *not* a slam on FR.  No message board can be trusted to have faithful copies of news stories as message boards typically have very little control over users editing practices. Same would be true if DU were used as a source.  --BenBurch 06:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree to some extent. Some articles (ignoring the copyvio issues) are posted on multiple sites/forums/blogs, and are the same in every case. Most of these articles were copied and pasted from the original sources, many of which don't archive their articles, and the aricles disappear after a few months. (that's one thing great about CNN. They have articles going back a decade - like quotes from the GOP criticizing Clinton for 'attacking Sudan', when he was trying to kil OBL, his 'needless costly war in the Balkans', and his phony 'war on terror') Unless there's some kind of 'conspiracy', articles posted on multiple sites are likely to be accurate, IMHO. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But since its just Joe Nobody copying and pasting the articles its not reliable. While it isn't a reliable source, I do think the mere volume of articles going back nearly 10 years now makes for quite an interesting archive, since like you say most websites delete their stories after several months.--RWR8189 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now, you know that an article does not have to be online AT ALL to be cited in Wikipedia, in fact, that seems to a degree to be preferred. So, you don't use the link, you cite the original wire service or newspaper where that is still discernible from the FR entry.  What we REALLY need is to have Wikipedia Foundation make some kind of a deal with Lexis/Nexis so that some select body of editors could check such sites or conduct searches requested by others. --BenBurch 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline
Please strive to maintain basic talk-page discipline. Comments about other editors, personal opinions about the subject of the article and similar discussions are not for these pages. There are other fora out there for these, that are much more suited to debates about this subject. Here we discuss the article and nothing else. I have refactored a comment by FAAA and placed a WP:NPA warning in his/her talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ClemsonTiger confirmed as sockpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine
See Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. Please can we not hear from you again, Bryan, until your block expires? When that happens I am happy to work with you again on this article. --BenBurch 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, Ben, that the problem is that you don't work with him. You fight him every inch of the way. Every sock puppet investigation, and every conversation here at the Free Republic Talk page, has been littered with ridicule and personal attacks from you and your friend. The administrators just removed another personal attack against RWR8189, and posted another warning. In pushing your POV in violation of WP:NPOV, you have again and again violated not only WP:CIV and WP:NPA, but also WP:RS. - ClemsonTiger 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need to talk about yourself in the third person. Per blocking policy, You may come back when the block on your main account expires. Not before that. Picaroon 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop it Bryan, you have no right to be here editing this talk page now. You were properly blocked for 3RR, sockpuppeting and general disruption, and this is the SECOND new sock puppet of yours that we found here since  then.  Please obey the rules of this institution and you won't find that the other editors here, myself included, will ever stand in the way of good, constructive edits on this or any other article. --BenBurch 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bryan, you are cruising for a community ban if you keep up the sockpuppetting. The best way to have your POV heard is to edit within the rules of Wikipedia. Please think about it. - Merzbow 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I thought he'd stop and begin to obey our rules. But I really do not think that he will unless prevented from editing at all. --BenBurch 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, 's two-week block gets reset from today, and I expect that additional time will be added on. Another week or even two is merited. If any of his proven socks like edit, I expect that Bryan will get a permaban. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is policy, but we have to get an admin to take the action. Checkuser does not do this job (they do enough work cleaning up after liars without having to block them too.) BenBurch 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooops - I spoke too soon. Bryan/Clemson/Johnny/Arlington/Helvetica/DP1976/Mishwaka/Hums/Devin/Andrew and John Does 1-99 have been permabanned. Check the block log for Head Puppeteer. "Justice served is justice done"  - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well. Actually, I am sorry to see him go because he was smart and could have been a really good editor had he minded the rules. BenBurch 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, cause he didn't follow the rules from the get-go, and any user who creates numerous socks to 'vote' and sway consensus, as he tried to do, is the antithesis of a true Wikipedian. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that nearly anybody can redeem themselves if they start acting properly. BenBurch 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Oh well. Life goes on. :) - Merzbow 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After that little display in ANI I might have changed my mind. If that was him. BenBurch 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The IP address of the threat points to myspace-type provider called www.blnk.com. If that was 'Bryan', he has evidently studied up on proxies, which makes his actions all the more troubling. Evading a permaban to  threaten another user is serious business. If 'Bryan' posts again, I think an admin or the Wiki lawyer should contact law enforcement and his well-known employer. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be a good idea to contact a Checkuser admin privately on this issue. - Merzbow 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? The threat came from an anon (visible IP), so what would a checkuser do? Prodego  talk  22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so. Let's forget this whole matter as it deserves, and write this encyclopedia. --BenBurch 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the spirit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Back to business. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To-Do List on the article.

 * Regularize all the citations to use the cite macro or at least the ref tag to so that they all appear in the cites table.


 * Attempt to find some RS-V cites to good things FR or Freepers have done. For example is there any direct quotation from Tony Snow while he was on Fox News  praising FR?


 * Can we find a LGPL or fair use picture of one of the DC Freeps? Seems to me I recall some of the DUers had some good ones, could somebody ask on there if the owners would upload them here and turn them over to LGPL or at least PD?

Add your own items. strike out items as they are done. Thanks! --BenBurch 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish RWR1989 would write something about the Dixie Chicks and Tony Snow. I supplied links. As a Freeper he might know resources that we don't. I think my next addition will be Free Republic's contributions to the Franklin Coverup Scandal [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388cd49f5ce8.htm SEE HERE] and their early opposition to bush, claiming that he was involved with 'CIA Drug Smuggling'. IMHO those are as important as the Killian Docs. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He still could (and should) have some input on the items you wrote on that. --BenBurch 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bryan Affair

 * I thought you all might like to know that Seand59, who edited this article a few hours ago (and was immediately blocked indefinitely for impersonating a Wikimedia staff member), is now known as Carolyn-WMF. Her account has been unblocked by Danny. She really does work for the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * The article at AmericanPolitics.com that was allegedly written by TJ Walker does not exist. Click on the link you provided. It's a blank page. I believe that Wikipedia has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax. I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately. Dino 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the cut made by Carolyn, since there are some larger issues involved. She removed that paragraph for a very, very good reason. Please do not second guess her. Dino 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll contact TJ to confirm the info posted by 'Dino'. The Salon piece documents death threats too, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to use that, if we have to. Not much time today. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TJ Walker article - Free Republic Death Threats
Jeff Stein in salon.com July 13, 1999 writes:

"'T.J. Walker, an online columnist who dug up a passel of ominous posts on the Clintons in the past few months (another sample: 'People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard ourselves!'), claimed that Free Republic's 'political influence is rising even as death threats occur more frequently on its message boards.' As evidence, he cited the upcoming 'Treason is the Reason' rally that, in addition to featuring Barr and Hitchens, is also touting speeches by Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., another failed House impeachment manager.'"

I think 'Dino' might be pulling our collective legs. Salon - Free for All at Free Republic - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, we have our very own Willy On Wheels here. --BenBurch 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here?
Why are Wikimedia folks involved in removing sourced paragraphs from this article? No explanation or edit summary was left other than somebody else saying that there are "larger issues" involved. WHAT are the "larger issues"? Wikipedia is not censored is a key element of the creed here. --BenBurch 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently T.J. Walker's article was a hoax or something - see User_talk:Carolyn-WMF. - Merzbow 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm I just read the above threads - I now have no clue what's going on here. - Merzbow 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that some blocked user from here called American Politics and claimed to represent TJ Walker to get the article pulled. Use the Salon sources and re-create the paragraph.  --BenBurch 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not do that until it is clarified whether Carolyn was operating under WP:OFFICE. If she was, reverting her will have dire consequences. Prodego  talk  00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, I just did. BenBurch 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I commented it out for now. This whole matter has become weird, and I suspect that Wikimedia Offices may have been hoaxed by a fraudulent caller.  --BenBurch 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The APJ site is full of blank pages and html errors. I don't think anything was pulled. The page is still there here and take a look at the headers


 *  American Politics Journal


 * Headers and invisible text are legally the same as visible text, when it comes to libel slander etc. This page and these headers would NOT be there if they 'pulled the article'. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, no, unless Bryan actually hacked the site it looks like APJ did pull the article. The question of what prompted them to do so is of course the question. - Merzbow 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that somebody faked a call to them. --BenBurch 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If APJ were going to pull the article, they would pull the whole page, not leave headers that carry the same legal ramifications as visible text. The Bryantroll hacked into and posted through a myspace type site to get a new IP, so he has some technical expertise. I suspect he hacked the page. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretexting is always easier than hacking. Most hackers know this. --BenBurch 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that the IP of that site is what the attack is from? They look separate ti me, based on whois info. Prodego  talk  01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the threat against Ben was posted through a proxy using blnk.com (similar to myspace) so this troll has some expertise. - Fairness And Accuracy For All


 * The IP is User:38.119.66.207, correct? It is an open proxy (I should know, I blocked it), but I don't see how you are connecting it to blnk.com. Prodego  talk  01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The traceroute ended up at "16 images0.paxed.com (38.119.66.207)" part of blnk.com. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I follow you through the traceroute, but I do not see a connection between images0.paxed.com and blnk.com. Where is that coming from? Prodego  talk  01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh.... Never mind, I see. The IP might have just been misconfigured though, not necessarily a hack. Prodego  talk  02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the huge question
How does Dino (aka Bryan) know what TJ Walker told Wikimedia Foundation??? --BenBurch 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychic powers? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: 'Dino' claimed "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." Of course not? Salon quotes him, and here's something TJ wrote at about the same time he 'didn't' write the FR Death Threat article : ''"Don't get me started on the Fox News Channel, but when host Bill O'Reilly went on vacation recently, who was the replacement? Former Congressman Bob Dornan, the wife-beating, right wing wacko who has been ostracized by Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay for being "too out there." Enough said."'' TJ Walker We're being played for rubes. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect there are multiple admins working behind the scenes right now with WMF to get to the bottom of this... before any of us attempt any external actions I suggest we wait a day for updates. - Merzbow 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope so! Something here smells worse than a week-old trout. --BenBurch 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Trust me, there is no vast hidden force of admins investigating this, just Jossi, and I . Jossi is requesting information from Danny Wool as well as Carolyn, which we are waiting on. Other then that this page is largely on its own. Prodego  talk  01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. No need to speculate. Let's wait to see what Danny says (See User_talk:Danny), and what explanations are forthcoming about Carolyn's deletion of that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So TJ Walker 'didn't' write that article, huh?
It's sure odd that TJWalker.com LISTS that very article : "7-6-99 Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? "' Although none of the links work, I'd say that's conclusive proof. TJWALKER ALL COLUMNS - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here it is via archive.org; http://web.archive.org/web/20000303144134/http://tjwalker.com/7-6-99.htm


 * So, he DID WRITE THIS PIECE. This is conclusive.  We have been played. --BenBurch 05:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Think how that poor woman in the Wiki office is gonna feel! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaced text
Pending any further information: I've edited the section (since it was a blatent copyvio) and added it back in. brenneman 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a standard for verification that is not met by a purported phone call, or confirmed by amateur detective work. The citation quotes TJ Walker, in the absence of a better source otherwise we stick with verification not truth.
 * Don't guess if something is an office action. If it's not explicitly such, treat it like a normal edit.  Yes, this might get you de-sysopped or whatever, but it's the only rational way to proceed.


 * That makes perfect sense. (And in any case we have the original on TJs web site via archive.org) BenBurch 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine appealing his block for sockpuppetry and disruption
See his talk page. BenBurch 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Result was unblock denied. Too bad, really, I would rather he had decided to abide by the rules here, apologized, and gotten unblocked. He's a smart kid, and likely could contribute significantly to this effort had he tried. --BenBurch 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hathorn
I don't see anything POV about Hathorn's edits. Everything outside of the 2nd paragraph is pretty much straight copyediting, can we restore that to begin with, and then discuss that? - Merzbow 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. BenBurch 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it was accurate, but unsourced. (more sourcing now - good) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the following sentence "Some liberal critics claim that Free Republic has posted calls for inappropriate action by some of the members [3] whom the opponents contend advocate political extremism." The death threats are documented by Salon, and other RS V sources. This sentence needs a rewrite, and mention of 'death threats' IMHO. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote it. Please comment. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good. - Merzbow 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a lot of content
Jerome Corsi (which used to be in the article), Tony Snow, and Dixie Chicks.

Please help rewrite, and linkify. I have to find the link on FR where JimRob admits that Tony asked him to pull all his posts, and close the account. Apparently he never wrote anything really bad, and pulling the posts of somone who just got a high profile admin job is not unusual. Comments, objections, praise welcome. Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job! BenBurch 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Jim Robinson bio paragraph.
Please check my edits, but I don't think either of those sources qualify as RS, and I don't think we need any information about Robinson here in this article which is NOT about him. Thanks! BenBurch 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There might be a place for some of it - like if his Vietnam service affected his political views - but not in the intro. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We still need an RS for it, though. I know of none. BenBurch 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FR currently being investigated by WI law enforcement for DOS attack
As of 1/21/07, against an Arab-American owned business that supports a U.S. redeployment in Iraq —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs).


 * Until there is a reliable source stating that, it cannot be in the article.--RWR8189 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I read, the cause is the firm's insulting e-mail to a U.S. 1st Cav Division NCO who wanted to buy the firm's product, but was rebuffed. Free Republic never urged a DoS attack, though a poster did pist the firm's contact info.  --GABaker 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A "dead agent" attack then. You don't have to kill a secret agent, just publish his contact information.  The mere outing is an invitation to attack. This was similar. But I still need to see a RS. --BenBurch 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. So should Snopes be held responsible since they published the contact information, too? Jinxmchue 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not! Once the cat is out of the bag it is no longer private.  You can make a cucumber into a pickle, but you cannot make it back into a cucumber. --BenBurch 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, guess what, Ben. FR didn't break the story or first publish the information. Jinxmchue 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source regarding the death threats. Though it isn't stated explicitly in the article, my sources in WI law enforcement tell me that Free Republic is being focused on as a source of a hacker attack and several death threats: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=555527

Per the news story,

West Allis police said Monday that they were aware of the controversy. "We're monitoring the situation, in case somebody decides to retaliate," Capt. Tom Kukowski said." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Sorry, but that article states the site was taken down by the owners, not a DOS attack: "Bargain Suppliers of West Allis said its discount-mats.com Web site had to be taken down Monday to address the thousands of e-mails it's received since news of the exchange - in which an employee voiced opposition to the war in Iraq - began circulating on the Internet last week." Jinxmchue 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, got any names for your "sources in WI law enforcement" so we can verify your claims? Jinxmchue 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The person I spoke to relayed my query to Captain Ponzi (not sure I got the spelling right) and informed me that FR is one of the groups they're looking at.


 * Oh, it's only one of several groups. So have you been endorsing adding this information to any Wiki pages for those other groups? Jinxmchue 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the source of that quote, as google would have shown you, Jinxie; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/national/main2388167.shtml "Anti-War E-Mail To Soldier Causes Backlash" via the Associated Press.  Sounds like a Reliable Source to me... --BenBurch 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Still says absolutely nothing about Free Republic, Ben. Please review the discussion and try again. Jinxmchue 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'hate group' settlement
What happened to RWR1889? He seems to have lost interest in anything Freepalicious except for reverting vandalism. Tough times! I found a RS V source for the $60,000 settlement that the City of Fresno paid JimRob for calling FR a 'Hate Group'. Did he really spend it on an RV? Maybe one of you guys can add it to the article. Freepers = LOVERS, not HATERS! - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if he did, isn't that OK? He is a special needs person, and travel must be hard for him.  --BenBurch 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Free Republic' got defamed, not him. He could have rented a really nice RV for a month for $5000, and refunded the rest to the members. There have been lots of questions about FR 'fundraising' - it could have put some of those ugly rumors to rest, and bought him some 'good faith'. Check out this thread. HERE  LOL ! - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed he COULD have done that. Maybe SHOULD have.  But as he is the sole owner, he didn't HAVE to.  And I do have sympathy for anybody in a wheelchair. --BenBurch 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too. Did you read that thread? AFAICT, the far right criticize JimRob and FR MUCH more harshly and frequently than the left do. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. It was a stitch!  I almost choked on my coffee laughing.  --BenBurch 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been unblocked
After contacting the ever patient and cooperative Carolyn Doran (several times) and Attorney Brad Patrick (once) at the Wikimedia Foundation, and working patiently at Unblock-en-l with Yamla, Luna Santin and another admin that I only know as "Larry," I've been unblocked.

I will not abuse their trust, and I am grateful for their intervention on my behalf. Let's all relax for a moment, have a cup of coffee or a glass of wine if you're inclined, and decompress. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I refer everyone who has any questions (or snarky remarks) to this notice on my Talk page. Dino 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And you're already violating WP on your first day back! Well done! Your edits to the 'conclusions' section of an investigation page reserved for Admins (now moved), and then your misrepresentation that this investigation had been concluded through 'consensus' are amusing, but violations of WP protocal. Keep up the good work! I am still waiting to hear Carloyn's explanation about the removal of the TJ Walker material beacuse of a mysterious phone call at the same time as you were posting that another mysterious phone call to TJWalker resulted in him denying that he had written the article. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I un-archived some recent discussion - and unsettled issues regarding TJ Walker, as they han't been addressed and shouldn't be archived until they are. Please do not re-archive them Dino. Thanks. Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * Your edits to the 'conclusions' section of an investigation page reserved for Admins (now moved) ...


 * Please guide me to the Wikipedia policy that reserves the "conclusions" section for admins only. Otherwise, revert your relocation of my conclusion. Thanks. Dino 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and then your misrepresentation that this investigation had been concluded through 'consensus' ...


 * I call 'em as I see 'em. It looks like a consensus to me. You didn't even try to deny it. Everyone else who participated in the discussion agreed that you have abused other Wikipedia editors. The evidence that you have acted in collaboration with BenBurch is most compelling. Sorry, but that's not how things are done around here. You've been warned many, many, many times about your abusive posting habits. Dino 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting to hear Carloyn's explanation about the removal of the TJ Walker material beacuse of a mysterious phone call ...


 * There's nothing "mysterious" about it and in response to accusations made earlier, I called Carolyn but most certainly did not impersonate TJ Walker. I spoke with her four times that day, clearly identifying myself each time; and we were most amused when she was permablocked for impersonating a WMF employee. I can only conclude that after my first call to her, she called TJ Walker herself and reached her own conclusions about the authenticity and reliability of that source, and made the edit. It should be removed because it is libelous. It no longer appears at AmericanPolitics.com because it is libelous. It no longer appears at TJWalker.com because it is libelous.


 * When a particular article or other publication is withdrawn, a cached copy can often be found lingering on the Internet somewhere, much like the City of Fresno press release referenced above that labeled Free Republic as a "hate group." That does not mean it is still a reliable source under WP:RS. It only means that it's impossible to completely remove all traces of a libelous statement from the Internet. Dino 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino: You claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that YOU contacted TJ Walker, the author of the contested article and that TJ told you that he never wrote that article! " I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." here (when TJ Walker certainly did write the article - and it's even archived from his website on the www! here) TJ Walker is a published notable author and RS whose work has recently appeared on CBS and National Review Here is a list of the dozens of articles, including the one in question. TJ Walker - All Columns 1999-2000 from the time period in question.

Could you explain the inconsistancy between your claim of TJ saying he didn't write the article, and the truth, and chronicle any interactions you had with TJ Walker ? Thanks ! There's a new investigation into these actions by the way - and it WILL involve TJ, since your hollow denials and phony claims demand so. By the way, TJ Walker doesn't suffer fools and liars lightly. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For Delay, Ney, Abramoff & Cunningham 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When you guide me to the section of Wikipedia policy that reserves the WP:SSP Conclusions section for admins only, I'll consider answering these questions. Thanks. Dino 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, let's remove these libelous statements and references from the article. Prior to mid-2001, Free Republic was not incorporated. It was a sole proprietorship. Jim Robinson was its only moderator and he monitored the site 16 hours a day. Any article about Free Republic covering the period prior to mid-2001 is therefore a biography of a living person named Jim Robinson, WP:BLP applies as official Wikipedia policy, and any false and defamatory material therein is libelous. The publication date of the alleged "TJ Walker article" is in 1999. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the article was removed from TJWalker.com and from AmericanPolitics.com for reasons other than the fact that it was libelous. Until you satisfy that burden of proof, every reference to that article should be eradicated completely from this one. This transcends questions of consensus and is not negotiable. Dino 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The following three sections have been reposted from WP:BLP and I encourage you to read them, as well as my review at the end. I have boldfaced the more important passages relevant to the present dispute. Dino 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material
Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:


 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:


 * "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

'''Folks, cite it or don't put it in. All unsourced material should be removed immediately upon sight, no questions asked.''' CyberAnth 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

'''Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used ...'''

Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

'''The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.'''

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

Dino says, "Let's review"
This is a contentious, emotionally charged, politically delicate topic. Based on the experiences of the City of Fresno regarding their "hate group" allegation, Jim Robinson will not hesitate to take legal action to protect his name and reputation, and those of Free Republic; I am doing my very best to prevent that from happening. When writing about such litigious people and organizations, it is best to err on the side of caution.

The alleged "TJ Walker article," even if it was written by TJ Walker, was self-published; and as you've mentioned, TJ Walker is a liberal. That, by itself, is sufficient grounds for removing it under WP:BLP. That article was then published on AmericanPolitics.com, a highly partisan left-wing website. This is also sufficient grounds for removing it under WP:BLP.

Even if WP:BLP does not apply, Articles about ongoing enterprises surely applies. While it is not yet Wikipedia policy, it has been proposed as policy and that proposal should meet favorable responses. It closely follows WP:BLP and in many places, it is a word-for-word copy. Dino 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming from a member of the FR legal team, that is a LEGAL THREAT. --BenBurch 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Let's remove it.  Tbeatty 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule. Thanks. Dino 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Dino. I emailed TJ Walker and American Politics Journal so that they can verify or deny your claims that TJ admitted to you that he didn't write his 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.com really DeathThreat.com?', and that because of that admission, APJ pulled it. Let's wait until next Tuesday for them to weigh in on this matter, OK? Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

Ignoring Dino
I plan to totally ignore any comments here by User:DeanHinnen and in fact, to totally ignore his existence henceforth. He can say whatever he wishes to say about this article, but I will edit it as though he never had said a word. --BenBurch 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that a powerful case has been presented with quotations from WP:BLP, you choose the "Ignore" option. Dino 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will listen to him - especially his insinuations that not removing sourced RS V criticism of FR might lead to legal action, and his claim that he is part of FR's 'legal team'. (I thought Bryan was on the legal team - I'll have to search for those posts by Bryan) - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * his insinuations that not removing sourced RS V criticism of FR might lead to legal action ...


 * It is not "sourced RS V criticism," and I repeat that I'm not threatening legal action. It is poorly sourced. First, that article was self-published. Second, it was then published by an extremely partisan left-wing website. Third, both of these sources have withdrawn the article from their websites. The directives of WP:BLP and WP:RS are very clear. The legal issue is that this poorly sourced and partisan criticism is being inserted, and fanatically defended, in an article about a man and an organization who sued the City of Fresno and won a $60,000 out-of-court settlement for libel. They are evidently inclined toward litigation. You don't need a member of the Free Republic legal team to tell you that. Dino 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you stop impugning TJ Walker and his writing as being 'extremely partisan' and 'left wing'. (he has been asking to verify or deny your claims that he admitted to you that he didn't write his 1999 article, and that he called APJ and had them 'pull it' because of this admission, by the way).


 * Rating the State of the Union
 * Wednesday January 24th 2007, 10:49 am
 * "When it comes to the pure mechanics of speech making, Bush continues to improve every year in office (regardless of your feelings about his political abilities). Bush now thoroughly knows his way around a Teleprompter. He moves his head well, pauses sufficiently, and does not rush. Bush finally shows a full range of facial expressions. His reading is more natural and the squints and smirks are staying hidden." SOTU - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asking Jossi to return mediation
Admin Jossi is one of the chief contributors to re-writing WP RS V to WP:ATT. I have asked him to return to mediation that was going well until Bryan created 5 (?) sock accounts to sway consensus. I hope Dino will 'sign on' to the still-valid mediation agreement and allow Jossi to guide any proposed major changes to the article. Maybe we should get the WMF attorney Brad to weigh in on specific third-party claims about FR and JimRob, as Dino is concerned about libel issues? - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * While we're waiting for all that to happen, I strongly recommend that we play it safe. Protecting Wikipedia should be more important than anyone's partisan concerns. Remove Reference #3 from the article, please, until we have input from the sources you've specified. Also, I wouldn't describe the removal of one poorly sourced partisan criticism as a "proposed major change to the article." Thank you. Dino 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we wait until TJ and APJ weigh in. We can't act based solely on your claims that TJ admitted to you that he didn't write that article - your original claim - as acting on that gives credence to your allegations that TJ palgarized the article, or had it ghost written, or what ever it is that you are claiming. (what is it exactly that you are claiming? If TJ didn't write it, who did?) - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino - please sign your posts, and there's no need to fill up this page with cut and pastes from WP. All of us here (expect for one or two) are quite familiar with the applicable policies. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we wait until TJ and APJ weigh in. We can't act based solely on your claims ...


 * We can act based purely on the fact that it has been withdrawn from publication at both TJWalker.com and, within the past few weeks, AmericanPolitics.com. The fact that you had to go searching for a cached copy, when just a few short weeks ago you were linking to a copy at AmericanPolitics.com, indicates that Carolyn and I might be telling the truth. WP:BLP and WP:RS clearly mandate the immediate removal of this libelous material. Furthermore, if a couple of phone calls to TJ Walker by Carolyn and I are unacceptable, then a couple of e-mails from you to TJ Walker are equally unacceptable. I'd like to see a written statement by Walker, posted at TJWalker.com or some other RS, indicating that he did write the article and that he stands behind it today. Until we get that, every mention of that article (including the mention in Salon) must be deleted from this website. If you are as familiar with Wikipedia policy as you claim to be, then you will agree without the slightest hesitation. Dino 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We can wait for TJ and APJ to weigh in. Thanks for your insistance on verification though. I'll suggest that TJ Walker contact Brad Patrick, the WMF attorney, preferably by fax, to verify or deny your claims. You're still standing by them, right? - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from hios website, on the basis that it was libelous? Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question, why is it WP:BLP mentioned? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jossi - We only have Dino's 'claim' that the article was pulled. I believe it to be nothing more than a website error - and TJ Walker and APJ have been asked to verify or deny Dino's 'claim'. META headers and invisible text have been ruled 'be the same' as visible text in cyberlaw. The page here still has the   headers


 * <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html charset=iso- 8859-1"><meta name=Author content="Free Republic"><meta name=Description content="Free Republic's Latest Stunt: Death Threats Directed Against Hillary Clinton"><meta name=keywords content="American Politics Journal,Free Republic,freerepublic.com"><link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href=http://apj.us/apj.html> American Politics Journal


 * Thus still constituting 'libel' using Dino's argument. A site admin deleting an 'offending' article to protect thmselves would NEVER leave such headers intact. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Info on FR's extremist history
The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire]

[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More claims from this time period] (an official FR 'page' compiled by FR - and as such, reflects their views)

And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a208ce00453.htm Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?]

I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims from verifiable secondary sources that are 'accepted truths'. I also ask that we wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims that TJ Walker admitted to him that he didn't write his July 06, 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' before deleting this source.

Note that all the facts above are sourced from Free Republic itself. Let's not try and sweep FRs documented extremist past under the rug - it's neither 'accurate' nor 'fair' like is my credo! - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion or characterization of what is extreme is simply not relevant. Find mainstream, reliable Sources that characterize it as such. Otherwise it has no place here.  Save it for the DU threads on FR.  --Tbeatty 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK! "Free Republic's founding guru, Jim Robinson, has been sued by the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times; and a swelling number of haters have turned up the volume of death threats, gay-bashing, name-calling and conspiracy theories tying the father of Republican front-runner George W. Bush to drug-dealing by the CIA....The top extremist, in the estimate of the disenchanted, is its founder, Robinson... When Robinson unleashed a windy jeremiad linking Texas Gov. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father, a former CIA director (1975-77), vice president (1981-89) and president of the United States (1989-93), all cyber-hell broke loose." Salon.com - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

BenBurch blocked 24 hours for 'incivility and mischaracterization'
The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

Is that the official position of Free Republic, or the surveyed position of a majority of its members? Read the thread. Do not characterize it as the official Free Republic position unless you can prove it. BenBurch has just been blocked for 24 hours for mischaracterization. What you are describing is the position of a small segment of Freepers: the tinfoil hat crowd. That crowd is constantly subject to ridicule by the rest of the Free Republic membership. You are succumbing to the usual temptation: characterizing the most flaky, freaky quotations you can find as those of the "typical Freeper."

I also ask that we wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims ...

Earlier, you suggested a deadline of Tuesday. We shouldn't even wait that long. The burden of proof is on you under WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, and until you satisfy that burden of proof it should be removed. Dino 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - lets wait till Tuesday. What part of the TJ Walker article do you claim is a violation of BLP? FYI, DU pulled the nutty threads that alleged that the Indonesian Tsunami might have been some 'evil Bush plan'. No such action from FR when their members alleged that Clinton bombed Oklahoma City or the USS Cole, was there? Do you want me to source the 100's of threads on FR that claimed Clinton had his political opponents killed? No comment from you on FR's owner claiming Bush was a 'felon and cokehead' and he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, I see.


 * By the way this page: [www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse FR 'action news bill'] being an official FR 'MEMBER page' allowed by FR - shows official FR tolerance of these views. [refactored] Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * That page isn't an "official FR page compiled by FR." It's a user page by ActionNewsBill. What official position does ActionNewsBill hold at Free Republic? Is he a member of the board of directors, or the president of some local Free Republic chapter? Is he Jim Robinson's right hand man? None of the above. He holds the same official position at Free Republic that any ordinary editor holds here at Wikipedia. Does any ordinary editor speak for the Wikipedia Foundation? Do not mischaracterize that as an "official FR page compiled by FR" unless you want to join BenBurch on the blocked list. Dino 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad! A Freeper calls himself 'action news bill' ? OK! Don't worry. I have lots more links to articles and threads on FR that I can supply! What about JimRob calling Bush a 'cokehead and a felon' and that he would 'take up arms' if Bush got elected? That is the gist of much of the criticism (which mostly comes from genuine conservatives) - JimRob's (and FR's) 180 from being Bush Haters to becoming Bush Worshippers and Big Gov-Loving, Civil Liberties-Hating Statists. No comment Dino? Did '9/11 change[d] everything' ? - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have lots more links to articles and threads on FR that I can supply!


 * Unless it is an article written and posted by Jim Robinson, John Robinson or Kristinn Taylor at the top of a thread, it is not the official Free Republic position. Do not mischaracterize it as such. There have been roughly 100,000 threads at Free Republic in its 10-year history. If you can show that even one-half of 1% of those threads are conspiracy theories, I'll be surprised. Dino 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Plenty of posts written by JimRob himself - posts that he didn't delete like he did his posts alleging that Bush was tied to 'CIA drug running' - Here's another one from 1999 "I do not believe a Bush Presidency will be good for our Constitution or for our Republic. I also oppose Dole, Hatch and McCaine on the same grounds. I believe that Forbes, Keyes, Smith and perhaps Buchanon would be strong supoporters of the Constitution. I'm neutral on the other Republicans whoa re running."Posted on 08/20/1999 16:54:27 PDT by Jim Robinson [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm link] - Your comments on this thread Dino? [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387c13bb5565.htm Sudden Instant Death Syndrome (Clinton)] - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty keeps deleting this - so here is FULL Jim Robinson 'cokehead felon' post verbatim
To: Freedom Wins

"So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful indiscretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?<P>

Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!<P>

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!"

2 Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm REPLY #2] - You accuse me of misquoting him or misinterpeting him???! Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * That would belong in a biographical article about Jim Robinson. I notice that they started one, there was a Request for Deletion, and the consensus was that it should be merged here. But every time Billy Hathorn tries to include biographical material, it gets reverted.


 * I made it clear that anything written by Jim Robinson, John Robinson or Kristinn Taylor that is posted at the top of a thread is the official Free Republic position. What you have posted here is an example of Jim Robinson posting as a member of Free Republic. It was Reply #2, not the top of the thread. Robinson has the right to participate in discussions there, and vent his personal opinions just like everyone else. But unless they are at the top of the thread, they are not official Free Republic policy.


 * My only concern at this point, really, is the removal of libelous material to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. Anything else like this is a secondary consideration. You're insisting that we wait until Tuesday to hear from TJ Walker and AmericanPolitics.com about the removal of that article from their websites, and that the libelous material should stay in place until then. More prudent heads than yours need to be involved in such a decision. There's a noticeboard for libel that's linked to WP:BLP and I'm posting a notice there. Dino 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you misquoted him. He did not call Bush a cokehead and a felon. He is chastising the WP for allowing Bush to not answer questions about it. To wit, Bush is President and Robinson doesn't seem all that upset. But I doubt he would be happy if the U.S. elected another Clinton so he wants those questions asked and answered (drug use and felonies). --Tbeatty 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, use my full username. --Tbeatty 15:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Yes, you misquoted him. He did not call Bush a cokehead and a felon. He is chastising the WP for allowing Bush to not answer questions about it." ROFLMAO - 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's his comment in the thread: To: To All: I was addressing my comments to the author and supporters of the view subscribed to in this editorial. Does the Wall Street Journal now claim that a felon, any felon (forget about the name Bush for a moment), should be allowed to be our President? And do they further say that the precedent set by Clinton's stonewalling is ok? That as long as a presidential candidate stonewalls on questions of his integrity that it is ok? If he can stonewall the press and the people will fall for it that it's all ok? If cocaine use is a felony, any person who used it at any time in is life is a felon and he should not be qualified to run as president. It appears to me that we have a potential candidate who realizes this fact and this is why he refuses to answer the question. I just kinda blew my top when I see what is normally a conservative editorial page spin for a felon. Forget the name. They are suggesting that if a candidate has a felony in his background that he should simply follow Clinton's precedent and stonewall. I cannot believe I read this in a Wall Street Journal editorial.

89 Posted on 08/20/1999 10:03:57 PDT by Jim Robinson

Yes you misquoted him. --Tbeatty 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - two hours after he posted his screed and he saw that he had a full blown mutiny on his hands he tried to backtrack a little as damage control - but STILL alleges A SECOND TIME that Bush is a cokehead and felon (HERE) 'If cocaine use is a felony, any person who used it at any time in is life is a felon and he should not be qualified to run as president'. Or are you gonna claim now that he was talking about Klintoon? Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All
 * Nope. He's talking about Presidential candidates.  They should not have enganged in felonies.  Saying that Presidential candidates should not engage in crimes is not the same thing as alleging that they did.  Robinson makes that clear.  He complains that Bush decides not to answer the question and WSJ is backing him up on it.  That is quite a bit different than alleging that he is a felon.  Your misquotings and misunderstandings are creating an embarrassing littany of BLP violations.  Please refrain from adding your wild interpretations to the article.  --Tbeatty 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "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!" Jim Robinson 1999 Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

About Wikipedia 'getting sued' for libel
Dino - all your worries are for naught!

"Thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com." Wikipedia and libel - 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to read this, in particular the analysis by Prof. Lichtman of the University of Chicago's College of Law. If Wikipedia employees (such as Carolyn Doran and Brad Patrick) are aware of libelous material in the Free Republic article, and refuse to do anything about it, can Wikipedia be held liable? Do you really want to find out the hard way? Wikipedia's status under Section 230 of the CDA has never been tested in a court of law under those specific circumstances; and, win or lose, there's always the matter of attorney fees. Why roll the dice with a proven litigious man like Robinson? Is the decision to roll those dice your decision to make? Play it safe. Dino 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dino," something is not adding up with all your "concern" about getting Wiki embroiled in a legal battle with Jim Robinson, and urging everyone to "play it safe" - especially since your take on "play it safe" always seems to translate to don't post anything unflattering, no matter how truthful, about Jim Robinson or Free Republic. I'm sure a lot of us who edit here on Wiki were born at night - just not last night.Carthago delenda est 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, you must have missed this
Note :  That Admin User:Jossi who is heavily involved with BLP, LIVING, and re-writing RS V to ATT is of the opinion that the source is fine, even as he accepts as fact Dino's unproven claim that the article was 'pulled' for being libelous! "Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from his website, on the basis that it was libelous? [unknown] Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC) link Why is Dino even persuing this, when Jossi, who is the long time mediator on the Free Republic article, [just now returning to medition] said it was OK?


 * This too : Free Republic was not a sole proprietrship in 1999 as Dino claims. It was a LLC. From L.A. Times vs. Free Republic [1999] "Unable to present any evidence of transformativeness, Defendants are forced to falsely portray “[t]he [Free Republic] site [as] a not for profit enterprise.”  Defendants’ Motion 6:20-21, 7:5 (relying on the Declaration of Howard K. Szabo).  In fact, the Free Republic website is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of “Internet discussion and marketing.”  Wayland Decl., §§ 9-10, Exhs. H & I (fictitious business name statement for Free Republic).  Free Republic is not -- and never has been -- a non-profit entity." LA Times v Free Republic - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * Quoting from the Plaintiffs' pleadings rather than the final negotiated judgment? Are you always so one-sided in your analysis? Why do I even bother asking that question? Dino 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LMAO ; "CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT : Defendant-Appellant Free Republic is a not-for-profit limited liability company" link Keep digging that hole Dino - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on LYAO. That document is a Corporate Disclosure Statement from  April 2001. Dino 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From 1999:


 * STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Defendant Jim Robinson is the owner and operator of the two website Defendants: Electronic Orchard and Free Republic,[10] Electronic Orchard is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of "Internet Programming & Design Services."[11] Free Republic is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of "Internet discussion and marketing". Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

Proposed additions
From the Dec 2002 Chronicles magazine article. I would like to summarize the following:


 * "Some members became concerned that Free Republic had become a virtual hangout for kooks. 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."

And add the following quote verbatim.


 * "With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act as if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders."

Don't forget - I am the one who just researched, compiled, wrote and added the PRO-FREE REPUBLIC additions about Tony Snow and the Dixie Chicks, and even the pro-FR Walter Reed info too. I'm think I'm becoming Freeper at HEART ! Are we all OK with this? - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 08:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There should not be anything pro(or anti) Free Republic in the article. It should all be neutral. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You want mediation?
So do I. Restore it to the version that Jossi created, because you've been removing or muting the "good" portions and reinforcing and adding "bad" portions ever since he posted it. That was a balanced, NPOV article and you've been steadily turning it into more and more of a hatchet job. Dino 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What??? Here's the last Jossi version. What 'good' portions have I removed? link I've actually ADDED info that reflects postively on FR (Pro FR wrong terminology) Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * Ok, let's look at Resolving disputes.


 * File a Request for Comment (step 4), or if you feel that we have already done 4 and 5, go to 6 and request formal Mediation. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  16:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We can return to the informal mediation which was going well until Dino's brother created multiple sock puppets. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But how can we have any rational discussion as long as we are being threatened with lawsuit? --BenBurch 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See No legal threats. If anyone is making such threats, please report at WP:ANI≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody's making any legal threats. That is the latest tactic being used to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with BenBurch, who believes that he owns the article, after his latest round of accusations proved to be false. The official finding of Unblock-en-l, after a ten-day exhaustive review, confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet and that my purpose here is a good faith effort to remove libelous material. Certain parties refuse to accept that unanimous finding, and continue to defend this libelous material with a fanaticism not seen since Iwo Jima. Fensteren has also been cleared of the false accusation against him.


 * This content dispute has already been discussed at great length, as the Archives confirm. Informal mediation was [redacted see NPA] by FAAFA when he started rewriting mediator Jossi's section about the LA Times lawsuit. In the meantime, basic mechanics of encyclopedic writing such as references and a consistently followed reference style are being dumped in the ditch by people who would prefer to fight about content, and make false accusations.


 * RfC will solve nothing. Conducting a survey will solve nothing. WP:NPOV will continue to be trashed. I recommend formal mediation. Dino 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Note that mediation must be accepted by all involved parties. You can please a request at WP:RFM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I have reported this at ANI. Please see discussion there.   Attorney Dean Hinnen represents Free Republic legally, and has posted what can only be seen as a legal threat on his user page.  --BenBurch 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to wrangle and wrestle my way through a Request for Mediation unless I get some assurance from other parties that they will accept it once it's filed. It appears to be a lot of work. Dino 19:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the dispute ends here. --BenBurch 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA doesn't provide a binding decision anyway. The parties (specifically BenBurch and FAAFA) could abandon the decision and start warring over content again if it doesn't go their way. What's the point? The Arbitration Committee is the only way to obtain a binding decision. Dino 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom will not accept to hear the case, unless all elements of WP:DR have been exhausted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm getting tired of the insults from Dino, and claims that I have introduced POV. I haven't. Here's what APJ said about LAT v FR.


 * 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 - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree his assertions of NNPOV appear to be blatant mischaracterization. --BenBurch 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dino : Please read the above APJ article, especially the claims about FR's lawyer, his conduct, and what he is alleged to have done on other mesage boards. If you, being FR's lawyer and all, were concerned with 'libel', and got them to 'pull' the TJ Walker article, but not this one - does that mean you agree that the statements in this article are true and correct? Seeing how you characterized JimRob as 'litigious', and you're the FR lawyer, and you're both sticklers for the truth, you apparently agree that this article is 100% accurate, or you would have had it removed at the same time as you forced APJ to remove their TJ Walker article, right? What's the deal? Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom will not accept to hear the case, unless all elements of WP:DR have been exhausted.

I have just offered to participate in formal mediation and it was instantly rejected: "Then the dispute ends here." Jossi, what's the next step in dispute resolution after formal mediation has been rejected? Dino 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not mischaracterize what I said - If you are not willing to make the filing, the dispute does end right here. You are putting words into my mouth, and I'd thank you to please stop doing it. --BenBurch 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you willing to participate in formal mediation? Yes or no, please. Don't use weasel words. A yes or a no. Dino 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll decide that when I've seen what you file. On principle, yes.  On specifics, well, I never sign anything I have not read.  --BenBurch 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are weasel words. Once you're in formal mediation, you can feel free to clarify your position, and correct any mischaracterizations that you feel I've made. FAAFA, what about you? Dino 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If TJ Walker confirms your claims that he admitted to you that he 'didn't write' his own 1999 article, and that he then called APJ and had them 'pull' it because he 'didn't write it', I'll agree. Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * Please retract your very uncivil (and disruptive) mischaracterization of what I said. --BenBurch 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please file a WP:RFD and see how it goes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've filed WP:RFC. Let's see how it goes. I'm not optimistic, but I will give it my best effort. If that fails to resolve the problem, I'll try formal mediation. When these two reject that, I'll go to ArbCom. Dino 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm... An RFD and and RFC are different entities. And there are more parties than FAAFA and myself here.  And I find your assumption that I will reject it to be a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and a mischaracterization.  --BenBurch 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An RFD (Redirects for Discussion) obviously does not apply here, so I assume an RFC is what Jossi meant. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what was filed; Requests_for_comment/BenBurch --BenBurch 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question
At what point do we force a stub version and make everyone start from scratch. Simon Pulsifer's version looks like a good place to start back from.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We stubbed it and started from scratch in November. That is how we got here. :-( --BenBurch 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that I delete everything but SimonP's entry and work off of that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm game. But we stubbed it back to almost that once is what I'm saying.  --BenBurch 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already created a great place to start. Want to see it? How do we create a Sandbox page like Jossi's? Dino 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this: Sandbox This includes the specific mention of the phrase "death threats" that the Democratic Underground people are fighting so very hard to include. It is based on Jossi's compromise version but contains some new material, and I've started creating a consistent system of references that should be completed. Most importantly, it removed the libelous material and it satisfies WP:NPOV. What do you think? Dino 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Dino, Since you are arguing that Scalon is RS V by sourcing the article yourself, I feel that we should include the following info as well - not just the one issue you 'cherry picked'.

I would like to summarize the following:


 * "Some members became concerned that Free Republic had become a virtual hangout for kooks. 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."

And add the following quote verbatim.


 * "With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act as if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders."

Thanks for your endorsement of Scalon. This makes things peachy. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Dino's version is fair and balanced, exactly the way it's written. This is an encyclopedia. It must be neutral and balanced. There is already plenty of criticism in Dino's version of the article. His concerns about WP:NPOV are right on the mark. Providing a link to the Scallon article is sufficient if readers want to know more. Fensteren 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Question You sure are knowlegdable about, and involved in a dispute that doesn't involve you (Dino vs BB & FAAFA) for an editor who joined two weeks ago, with only a couple dozen edits. How did you get up to speed so quick? What's your interest in this dispute? You are aware that Bryan (Dino's brother) is a confirmed and permablocked muliple sock creating puppeteer, right? And that his socks used to do the exact same thing, right? Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

So very helpful
When asked to file an RFC about this article you filed this instead. Requests_for_comment/BenBurch] --BenBurch 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, all disputes about content revolve around your efforts to own the article in violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. Dino 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand by my main space edits to this article, of which I am quite proud. You are trying to get back at me for finding your sock puppets and your brother's sock puppets and for finding your legal threat against this encyclopedia.  --BenBurch 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're causing far too much collateral damage. Fensteren 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, that at this stage after all the mess with sockpuppets and other disruptions, a user RFC is not the way forward. It creates further animosity and will not be helpful. I would suggest that one of you file a WP:RFM and give a chance to an experienced mediator to assist with the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we'll need it after noted author TJ Walker weighs in on Dino's claims that he plaigarized (or worse) one of his own articles. I predict it's gonna get downright lonely around here! ;-) - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All

No More Legal Threats Dino

 * Reposted from ANI:

"Dino, regardless of your intentions, posting a comment stating that you are a part of the FR legal team and stating that you are here to prevent wikipedia getting sued, like someone else did, is what we class as a legal threat. It has the implication that if we don't do something then there will be a lawsuit brought against the site.

Stop threatening legal action. Also, I would advise looking at WP:COI with regards your involvement in the organisation. If there are legal issues you wish to discuss I would advise your organisation to contact the foundation directly. Any actions accompanied with what we see as threats are liable to get you blocked."-Localzuk(talk) 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:DeanHinnen voluntarily removed the Legal Threat from his user page. This concludes that matter.  --BenBurch 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another repost - from RfC
Outside View from User:Merzbow [who started out SUPPORTING BryanFromPalatine, Dino's purported brother]

I've had no experience with Ben or FAAFA before the short time I spent on the Free Republic article, so I can't comment on their behavior before that point or on other articles. But although they freely admit their own political leanings, they've been fair as far as I can tell in their edits to the article, and have been willing to compromise when presented with well-reasoned arguments. The big story here is Bryan's amazing months-long campaign of elaborate sockpuppetry, forum-shopping, disinformation, incivility, and quite obvious conflicts of interest. Him and his "brother", whether real or imagined, should be quickly escorted off any article related to the Free Republic. - Merzbow 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * I wouldn't say I supported him; I was sympathetic to some of his attempts to make the article more favorable to FR, but recoiled in amazement at his utterly suicidal shock&awe approach. As long as quotes that may be unfairly prejudicial are summarized instead of presented verbatim (like texts of death threats or otherwise), then I'm fine. I don't see any major problems with the article as it stands now (pending resolution of the whole TJ Walker mystery). - Merzbow 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I misstated your support. Thanks for weighing in. I don't see any real problems with the article either. I would like to introduce more about JimRob's (and FR's) 180 on Bush - read this very talk page for examples. Jim Rob was vehemently anti-Bush until he got the nomination, and which time he begrudgingly started supporting him. After 9/11 he became a 'believer'. Odd. The threats are documented in many places, including paleoconservative Sean Scalon's piece. The only thing the TJ piece alleges is that FR didn't remove SOME threats in a timely manner. Here is a newer story on threats. I won't even try to argue for inclusion until we settle some of the other outstanding issues. Posters at right-wing board threaten to kill Times editors, reporters Cheers - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 06:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't come here from RfC. I came here from WP:BLP.  I agree that Dino has said a number of things which verge on being outright nuts, but I think FAAFA has been nearly as bad.  On the BLP page he quotes the "verifiability, not truth" policy and compares an article accusing Free Republic of not removing death threats to an article accusing Saddam Hussein of orchestrating 9/11--ignoring that the accusations against Saddam 1) are notable, and 2) are described in Wikipedia *as* accusations made only by a minority, not as facts.  "Verifiability, not truth" doesn't mean that any accusation belongs in an article merely because we can verify that it was made; other policies still apply, such as notability, undue weight, and in particular, BLP, which prevents us from reporting just any old accusation anyone makes.  And it certainly doesn't mean that we can report the accusation as anything more than a minority accusation, as long as it actually is only made by a minority.
 * On the other hand, the *existence* of death threats at some moment in time (as opposed to FR's failure to remove them) isn't just an accusation; however most sites know very well that death threats will exist on any open forum. They would never dream of criticizing a forum merely because at some point in time, death threats existed on it.  In other words, the criticism of FR for having death threats exist on their site is also a minority opinion, and also needs to be reported as one. Ken Arromdee 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No BLP issues involved. No one's claiming JimRob made any death threats. The Wiki article doesn't even claim that FR was slow in removing the threats anymore anyway. Perhaps you can argue your death threats issue over at the DU article where RW POV Warriors insisted on including claims of threats that had no secondary sourcing at all.  I just replaced the TJ Walker quote with a Jeff Stein quote, and removed several lines of criticism. Peace! - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article still contains the sentence "Death threats and inappropriate calls to action by a handful of the site's members have garnered criticism from the media and blog-watchers." Also, "Free Republic has also been criticized for the actions of a small minority of members who made death threats".   While that doesn't violate BLP, it still doesn't belong in the article, because the criticism isn't notable.  Most critics know very well that any site can have a few members who post death threats and would not consider that as a valid reason to criticise the site.  The proportion of critics who consider this criticism valid is small, so the criticism should be reported as either a minority opinion or not at all.
 * I'm also skeptical about the Ivor Tossell quote, for similar reasons. Do many people think FR is the worst site in the world, or is it just him?  If it's just him,

is he a particularly prominent person or is he just some guy who writes on an editorial page? A minority opinion should not be given undue weight, and probably should not be included at all. Ken Arromdee 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No BLP issues involved. No one's claiming JimRob made any death threats.


 * But you are claiming that JimRob left death threats on his website for several months, and only removed them when they were made public elsewhere. That was the AmericanPolitics.com thesis statement. That is the libel here. Every website of this nature gets violent threats and other nutjob ravings posted by the lunatic fringe. The response of site administrators to such postings is the issue here. By standing behind this purported "TJ Walker" article like the Japanese at Iwo Jima, you are saying that Jim Robinson, a living person, permitted death threats against President Clinton (sitting president at that time) and his wife and teenaged daughter to be conveyed on his website, and did nothing about it until pressured to do so months later. That is libel against a living person who has previously sued and prevailed for libel. Dino 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wiki article doesn't claim that anymore, and I'm not even sure when the last time it did was. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But by scouring the Internet until you found a cached copy and fighting tooth and nail to keep it linked here, you ensure that the libel is distributed by Wikipedia. Therefore you place Wikipedia at risk. Dino 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A few more reposts from RfC
From Fensteren, another victim of false accusations of sockpuppetry: "The presence of people like BenBurch and others like him in this Wikiclique is poisonous to Wikipedia. They foster an atmosphere of conflict and venom, rather than collegiality and cooperation. Good people are being driven off, or leaving without a word ... The presence of such people is the reason why I have not continued to participate on Wikipedia to a greater degree. Careful review of the diffs and contrib histories confirms, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that BenBurch has formed a street gang. Whenever one of them gets into a disagreement, another one shows up, probably in response to a phone call or e-mail. BenBurch always baited BryanFromPalatine. Administrators blamed the victim, because he always took the bait and reacted in the wrong way. BenBurch should share his fate."


 * "Another from RfC "Since this represents Fensteren's seventh edit to Wikipedia, it is likely that this is a role account or sockpuppet." Guy (Help!) 11:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 'Turnip Truck' Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All


 * Fensteren has been clear about why his participation here is limited. RFCU cleared him. Your accusations live by that sword, so accusations against Fensteren should die by that sword (figuratively speaking, of course). Dino 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not the Admin who called him a probable sock or role account. A sock or meat puppet can use proxies, edit from another IP, etc etc and sharp admins will still spot them right away.They look at behavior and patterns. It's VERY rare that an editor who is not a sock or meat puppet will join Wiki then almost immediately embroil themslves in a dispute between other editors and start defending one vociferously for 'no' reason.  Don't forget my advice about the turnip truck. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From VoiceOfReason: "I was asked by User:BenBurch to comment on this page, so here it is: Ben, I really think you don't need to be editing Free Republic any more than User:Jinxmchue needs to be editing Democratic Underground. ... one reads as 'Sugar and spice and everything nice' while the other reads as 'snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.' ... I don't doubt the conflict could have been avoided had people avoided editing encyclopedia articles on subjects towards which they have a negative bias. That goes for everyone involved in the present politicization of Wikipedia."

From Tbeatty: "User:BenBurch and User:Fairness And Accuracy For All are two like-minded editors. They tag-team articles to get across their viewpoint. I don't believe they are purposely harming the project but their POV warrior mentality does have that effect. This is clearly seen on both the Free Republic and Democratic Underground articles. ... User:DeanHinnen has a valid point that these articles have been hijacked by POV warriors and they should all be banned from these articles. The articles about FR and DU should be about the websites and their broad history, not the controversy that was made up in the previous two weeks. Both sites are formidable and reputable political websites and their Wikipedia should reflect that rather than as 'one upmanship' paragraphs of criticism and commentary by their respective fans/detractors posing as Wikipedia editors."

From Rjensen: "I had numerous unplasant experiences with BenBurch and his allies on the Henry Ford article. He refuses to accept the policy that statements have to be based on reliable sources, and ridicules and harasses patient explanations of why his ideas are not accepted by experts. He will not look at serious evidence that refutes his POV and attacks ediors who present it." Dino 11:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would only say this: continue using Wikipedia as a political battleground, and the most likely outcome is that eventually all editors involved will be banned from editing this article. I have seen this happening in articles about which there are strong POVs and in which most of the effort is spent in editwarring, using sockpuppets, and other disruptions. I would encourage editors to stop the word fight/edit war here and to file a request for mediation at WP:RFM. None of the involved parties should look forward to an ArbCom case... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jossi - While I might tussle a bit on the talk pages - I believe that my edits to the FR article have been exemplary. Look at my most recent edits. I added more 100% NPOV biographical info on JimRob. In regard to threats, I changed 'some members' to 'handful' and 'small minority'. In a spirit of compromise, I decided to remove TJ Walker's claim that threats were not removed in a timely manner - until TJ weighs in - and discovered that this claim wasn't even in the article anymore - and hadn't been in days! I removed the TJ Walker quote anyway, and replaced it with a quote from another article. Please take the time to examine my actions, not just words, and I believe that you will find them USDA Grade 'A' Prime. - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to keep my edits neutral. You know, I never wanted to spend all this time on this article, but I saw nothing but POV pushing in what was a very bad article (no sourcing, removal of sourced but negative material) and since I didn't think anybody else would stand up to it I did.  Now, maybe I should have recused myself, but had I done so this would be a sales brochure for Free Republic now.  So, what to do?  I could go away and do other things.  I'd love to.  But I know if I did this would return to its original state in days.  --BenBurch 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)