Talk:Free Republic: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:37, 31 January 2007

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Template:TrollWarning

Note: Other relevent comments may exist at Talk:Jim_Robinson. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.

Part of the history of this page is now at Talk:Free Republic/pagehistory, following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeploaders. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

<head><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><title>American Politics Journal</title><style>

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is the huge question

How does Dino (aka Bryan) know what TJ Walker told Wikimedia Foundation??? --BenBurch 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Replaced text

Pending any further information:

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.

I've edited the section (since it was a blatent copyvio) and added it back in.
brenneman 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're confusing what we can put in articles with how we can decide what to put in articles. Decisions about what to put in articles aren't subject to the same rules; for instance, we are permitted to do a Google test to help decide if something is notable, but the article itself may not contain the results of a Google test.

Amateur detective work is perfectly fine for deciding that a source isn't reliable. Ken Arromdee 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BryanFromPalatine appealing his block for sockpuppetry and disruption

See his talk page. BenBurch 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay. BenBurch 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Good job! BenBurch 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We still need an RS for it, though. I know of none. BenBurch 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'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 & Accuracy For All 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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 & Accuracy For All 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 & Accuracy For All 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 & Accuracy For All 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 & 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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 & Accuracy For Delay, Ney, Abramoff & Cunningham 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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." ^[1]

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." ^[2]

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)[reply]

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, Wikipedia: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) [reply]

Coming from a member of the FR legal team, that is a LEGAL THREAT. --BenBurch 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let's remove it. Tbeatty 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Another question, why is it WP:BLP mentioned? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
<html><head><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><title>American Politics Journal</title><style></style></head><body></body></html>
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 & Accuracy For All 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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....
The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire
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.." 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 & Accuracy For All 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
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: FR 'action news bill' being an official FR 'MEMBER page' allowed by FR - shows official FR tolerance of these views. [refactored] Fairness & 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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 link - Your comments on this thread Dino? Sudden Instant Death Syndrome (Clinton) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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!
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 REPLY #2 - You accuse me of misquoting him or misinterpeting him???! Fairness & 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also, use my full username. --Tbeatty 15:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
"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 & 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)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
LMAO ; "CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT : Defendant-Appellant Free Republic is a not-for-profit limited liability company" link Keep digging that hole Dino - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on LYAO. That document is a Corporate Disclosure Statement from April 2001. Dino 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 & 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 & Accuracy For All 08:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should not be anything pro(or anti) Free Republic in the article. It should all be neutral. Prodego ^talk 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All
Ok, let's look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

1 Talk to the other parties involved

2 Bring in outside editor

3 Informal mediation

4 Discuss with third parties

5 Conduct a survey

6 Formal Mediation

7 Arbitration
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 ^talk 16:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can return to the informal mediation which was going well until Dino's brother created multiple sock puppets. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how can we have any rational discussion as long as we are being threatened with lawsuit? --BenBurch 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:No legal threats. If anyone is making such threats, please report at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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#Undue_Weight will continue to be trashed. I recommend formal mediation. Dino 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then the dispute ends here. --BenBurch 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree his assertions of NNPOV appear to be blatant mischaracterization. --BenBurch 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All
Please retract your very uncivil (and disruptive) mischaracterization of what I said. --BenBurch 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please file a WP:RFD and see how it goes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
An RFD (Redirects for Discussion) obviously does not apply here, so I assume an RFC is what Jossi meant. Prodego ^talk 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what was filed; Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch --BenBurch 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We stubbed it and started from scratch in November. That is how we got here. :-( --BenBurch 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm game. But we stubbed it back to almost that once is what I'm saying. --BenBurch 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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#Undue_weight. What do you think? Dino 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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#Undue_weight 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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All
So very helpful
When asked to file an RFC about this article you filed this instead. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch] --BenBurch 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, all disputes about content revolve around your efforts to own the article in violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Dino 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're causing far too much collateral damage. Fensteren 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & 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 & Accuracy For All 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:DeanHinnen voluntarily removed the Legal Threat from his user page. This concludes that matter. --BenBurch 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 06:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Wiki article doesn't claim that anymore, and I'm not even sure when the last time it did was. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 & 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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 & Accuracy For All 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
An outside comment
I strongly second the recommendation for mediation. The dispute at this talk page has been "hot" far too long. Arbitration is a reasonable option here. I've initiated arbitration on another dispute that was intractable and the committee accepted the request and heard the case. That's a solution I've seriously contemplated for this dispute. If the participants here make some earnest effort at an alternative resolution I'll respect that. If the users here believe their content edits are neutral and exemplary, please demonstrate equivalent skill at dispute resolution. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing, even though I'd love to wash my hands of this article. Maybe if we do this we can get RWR back here. I respect him as an editor and he represents the "other side" in this very well. --BenBurch 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only people really fighting tooth and nail are the sock or meat puppets of two users (one banned) trying to whitewash the article. They have a clear COI with FR, and even a history of fund raising for them. The others have come here to support them, or because they oppose BB and I from other interactions. Long term editors who are also active Freepers like RWR have raised no objections to the current article, which I feel is finally in pretty good shape. Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to author the RFM then? --BenBurch 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs formal mediation. I'd like to see RWR return and have an admin informally mediate, maybe asking for some third party opinions - insuring that this does NOT attract POV warriors from EITHER the left or the right. - Fairness & Accuracy For All
Formal mediation means that if we come up with a form of the article some warrior objects to, and he does the reversion game and the meat puppet game on it again, there will be consequences. I think we had a good article here finally after all this hassle, and if we are going to go through all of this again I want some insurance against sock puppets of Dino/Bryan. It might be a lack of AGF, but I just don't feel that episode is over yet. --BenBurch
Regarding Durova's comment, I would argue that editors of this article have a lot to lose if this ever goes to arbitration. A good mediator will be able to assist you in finding common ground. The additional advantage is that you get to learn to state your case to a non-involved person, and through that process hopelfulyl learn about the other side as well. Give a try, you may be surprised at the result. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi - you put in a lot of work mediating before a sock army invaded and derailed mediation - and are aware of the issues. Would you be willing to again, informally mediate? If so, I will make my best effort to keep my comments focused only on article related issues. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this case has gone beyond what an informal mediator can handle. In this case, an experienced mediator is required (not that Jossi isn't experienced), and formal mediation will move this forward in the dispute resolution process, should arbitration eventually be needed. However, I do not speak for Jossi of course. Prodego ^talk 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If I am going to spend any more time on this it has to be with a formal mediator. Otherwise Free Republic will be out of business and its domain name hosting detergent coupons before this article achieves anything like a good and permanent state. --BenBurch 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dino just announced he was going on Wikibreak, and I plan on waiting to hear from TJ Walker/APJ regarding Dino's 'claims' before I agree to enter any mediation with him. Lets see where things stand at the end of this week. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only trouble I have with him taking a break is that the LEGAL THREAT is still on his user talk page. If he does not remove that before going, he ought to come back to an indefinite block. You just cannot do that sort of thing and be allowed to get away with it. --BenBurch 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can get away with it. You need to remember blocks are not punitive, they are preventive. If he is not explicitly threatening to sue Wikipedia, then he is not harming Wikipedia, and therefore, does not need to be blocked. Especially if he is not editing. No one should ever "come back" to an indefinite block. Prodego ^talk 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he *is* explicitly threatening Wikipedia as I read what he wrote there. I'm going to drop this now, but it does not make me happy whatsoever. --BenBurch 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing the Wiki bookkeeper (who isn't even an active editor) to edit the article on his behalf, to his POV, based on his claims that he spoke to a noted author who supposedly 'admitted' to him that he plagiarized (or worse) one of his own articles, under threats or implications of a lawsuit from the org that he claims to be an attorney for IS NOT HARMING WIKIPEDIA??? (sorry for shouting ;-) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to think it is. I dearly wish I could just forget about all of this! If I did not think that he was doing harm by those actions I would have done so long ago. I am sick to my core over this. --BenBurch 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then file the RfM. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't file an RfM or agree to one until I hear from TJ Walker/APJ. I just removed my name from the sandbox version too. - Fairness & Accuracy For All
Please don't edit that (since you are certainly involved) unless you intend to file it. If it is filed, then you can decline it if you wish, but until then it is in my userspace, and... Prodego ^talk 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - sorry - I thought my name being on it meant I agreed to it. - Fairness & Accuracy For All
Nope, that goes in the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section. Is anyone interested in filing this case? Prodego ^talk 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I decide to stay on Wikipedia, I'll file it. But I think I am just going to say "Fuck It" because Between the revenge RfC and the fact that sock puppets get to play here and make legal threats I am about totally fed up with this whole process. --BenBurch 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take the allegation about a banned user evading the ban very seriously. Please submit specific evidence with page diffs at my user talk if you'd like me to investigate that. Due to the time that's elapsed since the original account was banned this would probably require old fashioned gumshoe work instead of checkuser. Due to hardware difficulties my responses may be slow. Durova^Charge! 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been a checkuser. Prodego ^talk 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret I ever tried to keep BryanFromPalatine from abusing use with sockpuppets. I should just have washed my hands of it right then. Because all of the grief I have been having these last three months has been from pursuing his sock puppets and they are many. This just sucks. I try very hard to keep this sort of thing off Wikipedia and it becomes a reason to abuse me. --BenBurch 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let him get to you... keep your cool, let him continue to self-destruct, and justice will take its course. I've been there, done that, the process works... eventually. - Merzbow 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working 15 hour days here running two different radio networks and my archives too. I am about worn down by this whole thing. What I fail to understand at all is how DeanHinnen who is almost certainly a sock of BryanFromPalatine is allowed to remain here. And allowed to threaten us legally. And allowed to create new socks all the time with the claim that each and every one is some other family member. Man, I filed process after process on these sock puppets and the checkuser checks almost always came back positive and now, suddenly, I'm the bad guy because I did that. Worse, I am an evil cabal. And almost nobody wants to say anything nice about me in my RfC, so what am I to think? Maybe I don't belong here. I have RJensen in the RFC saying things about my activity in the Henry Ford article that are simply not so and I cannot even respond as I am not allowed to even edit in that section, and I feel helpless. And TBeatty goes and certifies the basis for the dispute AFTER he had written a comment on it, and that was irregular as hell and nobody says a damned thing. And he was never party to the dispute to begin with, he just joined as a way to abuse me further. So what am I to think, eh? --BenBurch 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - you guys don't realise that what we are going through now, we (Ben more than I) went through with EACH of Bryan's sock puppets - one after another - hours and days and WEEKS of BULLSHIT. Wiki is BROKEN. It FAVORS trolls and sockpuppets through anonymity and by letting people create DOZENS of accounts. For Wiki to work again, EVERY post should show the IP of the poster. (maybe for the first 90 days of each new account) and NO anon posting. You don't sign up for an account - you don't post. Fairness & Accuracy For All 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFM
I started a page to work on the RfM here the filing party (whoever is first I suppose) should start to fill it out there, until it is complete. Then follow the instructions to file it. No other involved party should edit it until it is complete and filed. Obviously who ever files may edit how they wish, but what is filled is should be done correctly (unless I screwed up), so you probably should just ignore that. Prodego ^talk 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Tuesday
FAAFA, has there been any response from AmericanPolitics.com or TJ Walker? If not, I expect you to honor your promise and remove the reference to that libelous article. Thank you. I've also posted my portion of the RfM. If either of you have any gripes about me, post them there after it's filed. Dino 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Dean, my good friend, that article was removed from this article long ago. --BenBurch 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under "References," please look at #3: "^ Walker, TJ. "DeathThreat.com" (archive link, was dead; history) , American Politics Journal." Carefully preserved with a link to an archived copy of the libelous article, even though AmericanPolitics.com, a partisan left-wing website, was prudent enough to remove the libelous article from their own pages weeks ago. That article is still in this article. Not just in the article, but in THE LEAD of the article, with the words "death threats." Something I notice that the Democratic Underground article has been spared from experiencing, despite the fact that death threats against government officials have been posted there as well, and much more recently.
This libelous material should be out of the article, and the lead of the article should more closely resemble the lead to the Democratic Underground article. Let's start with that. I'm going to get back to my Wikibreak. Dino 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only libelous if untrue. Nothing untrue about it that I can see. --BenBurch 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Free Republic policy is to delete any threat of violence instantly and ban the person who posted it. You are aware of that policy. The allegation is that a death threat against a sitting President and his wife and daughter were allowed to exist on that website for several months, and only removed under political pressure. It is a false allegation and, in fact, it is an exceptional claim. Dino 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a true claim. Proof of the truth is that you never sued for Libel in the seven years since publication. Policy as stated is not a defense against policy as implemented. You should have learned that in your Torts class. --BenBurch 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Dino - I've heard from them. You requested that they address your claims of plaigarism in a verifiable manner. That will happen soon. You were already informed that the claim had been removed from the article and acknowledged so. The last TJ link was also just removed pending the verification from APJ/TJ. Maybe I'll add this one tonight. I'm pretty sure Raw Story has been deemed to be RS V. Posters at right-wing board threaten to kill Times editors, reporters - Fairness & Accuracy For All
The Wiki article doesn't claim that anymore, and I'm not even sure when the last time it did was. - Fairness & 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)
My advice to you Dino (et al) is 'pack your bags'. (for your Wikivacation, that is) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an exceptional claim by a partisan source. Read this and this.
Its a true claim. Proof of the truth is that you never sued for Libel ...
Declining to sue a small-circulation outfit like AmericanPolitics.com proves nothing. Wikipedia has a far greater circulation.
You requested that they address your claims of plaigarism in a verifiable manner.
Please link to the diff where I accused anyone of plagiarism. But thank you for finally removing the last link to the libelous article. Dino 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per Mr. Hinnen's request: "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. User:DeanHinnen 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Link. This libelous and defamatory, actionable claim against Mr. Walker (and as its against his professional reputation, its even more serious) was repeated multiple times in numerous places over the course of several days by Mr. Hinnen. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I suspect that TJ Walker will have his representatives dealing with that tort presently. But that's just a guess. --BenBurch 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This libelous and defamatory, actionable claim against Mr. Walker (and as its against his professional reputation, its even more serious) ...
As always, going from what I said to what you've claimed that I said took a lot of distortion and misconstruction. I related what he said. That's all. Dino 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I related what he said." I predict that you are going to wish that you had chosen the 'Libby option' (that you mis-remembered what you think might or might not have been said) - as I cordially I advised you last week, Mr. Hinnen. Unfortunately, it's too late now. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Palatinian Friend- Not too late to un-ring this bell if you want to come clean. I think I could convince people to forget about this incident. I am willing to try, but we need a complete confession. Nothing held back this time. --BenBurch 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TJ Walker will have his representatives dealing with that tort presently.
Perhaps you should review the No Legal Threats policy. No legal threats against Wikipedia or its users. This is very broadly construed, as the recent review of my User page confirmed. Both of you might consider refactoring your legal threats before an admin sees them. Dino 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you going to agree to mediation? Dino 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on refactoring nothing. I can observe an offense and guess at somebody else's reaction like anybody else can. I've never spoken with TJ Walker, but I do see that FAAFA is right in his assessment about what you did. Unlike you I did not sleep through Torts. As for mediation, I have six more days to decide. And I will decide before the time limit expires. --BenBurch 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As BB says - plenty of time. No hurry. Fairness & Accuracy For All

Yes, Raw Story is absolutely a RS. --BenBurch 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More hysteria from a partisan left-wing source. Click on the link at the Raw Story page and half of the posts Raw Story claims to be there aren't there. The other half do not threaten murder or lynching; they contemplate trials for treason followed by a judicial death penalty. Not the sort of thing one thinks of when reading the histrionic headline, "Death Threats at Free Republic!!!!!" Another exceptional claim from a partisan source. Try reading WP:RS, particularly this and this. Dino 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you went on Wikibreak? I think I'm going to go on a short Wikibreak to 'recharge my batteries'. If you're not here when I get back, Mr. Hinnen, take care. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with that Raw Story article because it's anonymous; there is no byline attached. At least with the APJ article we had a name attached to it, T. J. Walker, a person who can be queried. - Merzbow 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story links to a still present FR thread though - and the threatening messages were 'removed by moderator'. Note other messages that constitute 'hate speech' are still present. We can discuss its inclusion when I get back from Wikibreak. (I think I'm taking one) Thanks for weighing in MB. PLEASE participate more. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that the story is reporting on a thread/responses that actually exist (or did exist), but that fact doesn't affect the issue of the reliability of the source. Salon is certainly good enough, but I don't think anonymous articles from a web publisher qualify. - Merzbow 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fair enough concern! I could ask Ms. Alexandrovna if the article could be attributed if that would be proper. --BenBurch 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they can put a name on it then my concerns would be addressed. - Merzbow 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC over.
(RFC not certified by two editors who have demonstrated that they have tried and failed to resolve their disputes)
Thank you all for your support. --BenBurch 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A needless RfC. Congrats on the quick resolution. I expect more resolution in the coming days. (I made your link shorter so I can view this page on my cell phone tomorrow. Hope you don't mind) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind at all. I forget about cellphone users and I shouldn't. (Never been able to afford web access for this thing...) --BenBurch 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I've removed no material and didn't rewrite anything. I've moved some paragraphs around so the article is more encyclopedic in layout. Intro about who they are, history etc. --PTR 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You moved all info that could be considered 'negative' to a less prominent position while leaving all the info that could be considered 'positive'. I moved this info - Killian and 'gained popularity' part to the same place as you moved the other info. Having only info there which is 'positive' is POV. The Killian part is debatable anyway. Freepers like to claim how important their role was, but most other sources credit LGF and Powerline more than FR. (back to my WikiBreak)- Fairness & Accuracy For All 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your change is good. I thought the rise to popularity could go in either section and flipped a coin. I wasn't trying to move positive or negative information but the info just seemed to fit better in history.--PTR 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAAFA: LGF and Powerline themselves credit Buckhead and Free Republic. Rathergate is the event for which Free Republic is most notable. That Ivor Tossell quotation should be put back into the lead of the story, and the section on Rathergate should be moved up. Suppressing such information, and crowding it out with negative material written by racists and death threat authors who were banned from FR, is what's POV about this article, sir. Read the following (credit to Paul Klenk for compiling it). I will also get back to my Wikibreak. Dino 15:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original FR thread, titled "Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard," started by Howlin, posted to by Buckhead (post 47). Notice the date and time of Buckhead's post (Fresno time), about 25 minutes after CBS first showed the so-called Killian memos on America's TV screens:
[1]
Original Power Line blog:
NYU Journalism mention:
journalism.nyu [2]: "And now, thanks to LA Times, it looks like, yes indeed, Rather was either punked by a freeper lawyer who goes my the moniker Buckhead or this guy knows who is the punker ( Blogger Who Faulted CBS Documents Is Conservative Activist )."
This is the blog that got the national story. It credits Buckhead:
powerlineblog [3]: "It started on the morning of September 9th. We're a group blog; there are three of us who do Powerline. My partner, Scott Johnson, got up early in the morning, and one of the first things he did was to check all the e-mails that readers had sent to us overnight looking for something interesting to follow up on. And one of those e-mails quoted from and linked to a post which somebody called BuckHead had done on a message thread at the Free Republic site, which is basically a message board.
This is another blog agreeing and laying out the timeline:
greatestjeneration blog: [4] "These days, CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his colleagues at the network's magazine program "60 Minutes II" are enduring an unusual wave of second-guessing by some of the public and fellow journalists. For that, they can thank "Buckhead." [Buckhead is the Freeper whose "hints" about what was wrong with the "60 Minutes" memos put web detectives on the road to discovery.--Jen" "But Buckhead is vehement about one thing: He acted alone when he posted, to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, what was widely believed to be the first allegation that the CBS report relied on documents that could have been forged." "Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post. Then the floodgates opened.
WP
Rathergate: "Buckhead," who gained Internet notoriety, would later be identified as Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney."
Powerlineblog:
[5]: "Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten meticulously reconstructs the events of this past Thursday following the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast Wednesday evening that have led to the exposure of the "new" documents featured in the Air National Guard story as forgeries: "No disputing it: Blogs are major players." Wallsten prominently credits our role in the development of the story: Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead. Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post. Then the floodgates opened."
Enterstageright.com
[6]: ""Buckhead" vs. Dan Rather: Internet David slays media Goliath": "Buckhead" and Post #47" -- As soon as CBS put the "documents," or rather photocopies of them on its Web site, a FReeper (denizen of the conservative/Republican Web site, Buckhead argued, "Howlin [another FReeper's username], every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. That was the first blow, from which all the others followed. Several FReepers in the "Pajama Posse" researched the matter further on a series of threads that night, to be joined by a number of bloggers, among them Ratherbiased.com, PowerLineBlog.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com and Instapundit.com.
I have no problem "crediting" Free Republic with this. However, I think this will blow up in their faces in a few months when a book on this subject I am aware is in production appears and proves the documents to have been real. --BenBurch 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing false accusation of sockpuppetry
Fensteren was CLEARED by Check User of your false accusation of sockpuppetry, and I'm confident that he will also be cleared by Unblock-en-l; he has already contacted that committee, and I will be addressing them as well. In the meantime, taunting and baiting serve no constructive purpose here and should not be allowed to continue. Dino 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a mention of this user at WP:RFCU. Could you please provide a pointer? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a taunt or a bait. It is a request. NO MORE SOCKS PLEASE. I am very, very fed up with you flouting our rules here and so are many admins here. Stop it at once. I have NO problem with you having ONE account here. But you may not have more than one. And I will not stop outing your socks and having them removed. You don't like that, file another retributive RFC against me on that issue. And this time do not support it with banned users and sock puppets. --BenBurch 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more time, I should explain that Checkuser clearing a account does NOT mean that it is NOT a sock puppet, just that they could not prove that by technical means. For example, you could have created a sock by visiting the local Panera Bread and using their free WiFi. Still a sock, but not a checkuserable sock. --BenBurch 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, here are all of the links you will need;
Several checkuser requests all to be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine
Here are his SSP investigations;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalantine_%28new%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%283rd%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%284th%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArlingtonTX
The revenge Checkuser his suspected sock filed against me (and which his confirmed sock RE-filed);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BenBurch
--BenBurch 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the only RFCU you need to see, Jossi
"Confirmed except for Fensteren." Fensteren, after being cleared and understandably enraged by the false sockpuppet accusation made by BenBurch, pursued the matter: " 'Sorry' just doesn't cut it, mister." This led JzG to believe he was a sockpuppet, even though Fensteren had his own motive for going after BenBurch. That's what happens when people indiscriminately throw around false accusations and personal attacks. The targets get angry. Dino 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is no defense. *sigh* --BenBurch 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the games or you will be permablocked once more. --BenBurch 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, please get this person under control. Dino 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under control? Not likely as long as you keep creating sock puppets. Or do you think Admin JzG was acting under my evil mind control when he threw that sock back into the drawer. You cannot keep breaking our rules here. --BenBurch 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under control? Not likely ...
That remark speaks for itself. Dino 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As does your quoting out of context and attempting to hide information about your actions. Just stop with the sock puppets, and you'll be left alone. Keep up with it, and I will see you blocked. --BenBurch 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006

[Jimbo-1] Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Jimbo2-2] Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 18:34, 31 January 2007 edit BenBurch (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,363 edits →‎Here's the only RFCU you need to see, Jossi ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:37, 31 January 2007 edit undo BenBurch (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,363 edits m →‎Here's the only RFCU you need to see, Jossi Next edit →
Line 879:		Line 879:
	:::::That remark speaks for itself. [[User:DeanHinnen\|Dino]] 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)		:::::That remark speaks for itself. [[User:DeanHinnen\|Dino]] 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::As does your quoting out of context and attempting to hide information about your actions. Just stop with the sock puppets, and you'll be left alone. Keep up with it, and I '''will'' see you blocked. --[[User:BenBurch\|BenBurch]] 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)		::::::As does your quoting out of context and attempting to hide information about your actions. Just stop with the sock puppets, and you'll be left alone. Keep up with it, and I '''will''' see you blocked. --[[User:BenBurch\|BenBurch]] 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)