Talk:Free Republic: Difference between revisions

FreeRepublic
	200px\|right\|Free Republic logo
Type of site	Forum
Available in	English
Owner	Jim Robinson
Created by	Jim Robinson, Robinson-DeFehr Consulting
Revenue	Donations (not deductible)
URL	http://www.freerepublic.com
Commercial	yes
Registration	Required to post

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:08, 26 February 2008

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.)

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.

Consensus is not voting.

Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.

Not revert.Eschoir (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir please listen. There are already too many references to infighting and purges at Free Republic in the article.

1. Salon.com's Jeff Stein observed in 1999 that: "[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."

2. These shifts signalled internal battles comparable to the nomination controversies of 2007 "as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support."

3. "Sadly, the FRN did not survive the infighting on FR," Johnson wrote.

4. "Starting in April 2007 ... members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign…"

Four mentions of infighting and purges is already too many. You made your point. Readers are already constantly reminded of infighting and purges from top to bottom of this article. Your effort to include fifth mention from Scallon article confirms that your conflict of interest prevents you from editing this article as unbiased and detached editor.

Also your effort to include Glennon mention is misleading. Is one expert opinion from Killian document articles your goal? If this is your goal then final conclusion of Peter Tytell in final CBS News report on this issue is more notable: "Tytell concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic." [4] If other editors here want to use this quote instead then I have no objection. But Glennon quote is misleading. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infighting and purges don't belong in the article at all. Take them out. Also, this page isn't the place to argue with other editors about their conflicts of interest. Let the edits speak for themselves. Lou Sander (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for urging a break in the COI personal attacking.

A remiinder that this article is on probation. "It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." That means no Freeper postings as sources. Eschoir (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Sorry, Lou. That would be a whitewash. I'm not here to whitewash the article. I'm here to bring it into compliance with NPOV. When correcting a POV problem, we have to be careful not to overcompensate.

These are criticisms from noteworthy sources. They have to be fairly represented — not overrepresented, and not underrepresented. Adding the second Scallon quote and the Pein quotes that Eschoir is trying to add would be "overrepresented." Taking out all criticism would be "underrepresented." "Fairly represented" is somewhere in between. Its precise location is debatable. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy anniversary! Eschoir (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not Soap Opera Digest. With few exceptions, the comings and goings of the characters, the opinions of the participants, and so forth just aren't important enough to include. Right now, the lead, which is important, more or less sucks. Proposals to improve it are met with trollish gibberish. It's a puzzlement. Lou Sander (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, please draft a new lead the way you want it and post it here. We will discuss it and if you get support for it, please make the edit in the article mainspace. Also, if you want to remove some (but definitely not all) of the "infighting and purges" and other criticisms, please follow the same procedure. You know that certain people will accuse you of whitewashing the article. Try to make sure they don't have any solid ground to stand on.

For everyone else, please follow the same procedure. All changes should be proposed on this page and discussed. If it's clear after a day or two that there are no objections, or if you see one objection but at least one or two other editors stated that they support your proposal, then go ahead and make the edit.

This article is not breaking news. There's no need to rush. Let's have a cup of tea and discuss before making changes, all right? Samurai Commuter (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That offer has been made in the sandbox for weeks, and no one but me has acted upon it.

And the rule is talk before deleting, or 'reverting,' not adding content.

I am seeking a 3rd opinion on sourcing. Stay tuned. Eschoir (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Cohen cannot be considered "unbiased" as 3rd opinion. He is trying to get Samurai Commuter banned. He is also trying to get me banned. This is not honorable. Shibumi2 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. My edits are fully compliant with policy, while your re-adding material that is not compliant with WP:RS is not. Lawrence Cohen 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: the Pein quotation that you keep adding. When someone else deletes it and you put it back in, you have reverted. Please don't. That edit is not supported by consensus. Pein was talking about the bloggers, meaning Rathergate.com, Little Green Footballs and Powerline. FR is a forum, not a blog, and both Pein and you seem smart enough to know the difference. Pein's comment is irrelevant to FR and creates a negative impression of FR for Wikipedia readers.

Also, Pein was writing before the CBS review panel posted its final report, which contained the Tytell quotation. At the time Pein was writing, questions about the authenticity of the Killian memos still had no conclusive answer and Mary Mapes was still working for CBS News. If Pein had revisited this article a few months later, his lead might have reversed: "on close examination the scene looks less like a case of mob rule than a victory for democracy."

Please remove the Pein quote. Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Forum posts are never RS, and Fact tags

No one may remove {{fact}} tags without addressing them. Any editor, however, is free to remove any unsourced material from articles at any time as I did so. Also, per WP:RS, forum posts are not a valid RS at this time. Do not re-add them. Note my edit here. Lawrence Cohen 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Free Republic.com message board posts as RS. Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see that noticeboard. I've answered your concerns there. Freepers' efforts to stop vandals from disrupting their forum are notable regarding Free Republic and are appropriately sourced to their discussion threads per WP:SELFPUB. Anyone who believes the Freepers are "extremists like Stormfront" should think about letting someone else edit this article. Samurai Commuter (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The events may be notable to their internal subculture, but are not notable for Wikipedia, as we have no coverage by external sources. We simply do not report the internal happenings of some minor internet message board. SELFPUB also has extremely specific limitations on it. Read them again. Lawrence § talk/edits 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's two misconceptions. Your first was that they're "extremists like Stormfront" and now you think they're "some minor internet message board." If you think that's the case, put in your AfD nomination or stubify it, and see what happens. The coverage from external sources is the Scallon article and the Bill O'Reilly quote. Supported by that external coverage, the internal battle against trolls and "agents provocateurs" becomes just as notable as the "infighting and purges" covered in Salon and the New York Observer, so if "infighting and purges" belongs in the article, then so does "agents provocateurs." And what the Freepers are saying about these disruptive trolls also belongs in the article. Samurai Commuter (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's unprotected, I'd be happy to remove any and all material added by banned users, or material that is non-notable, or one-note and limited to trivial matters. Yes, I said they were similar to Stormfront, and Stormfront is a minor fringe group. There is enough coverage at this time for Free Republic to survice an AFD, I think. Any user in good standing is of course free to nominate it for AFD, if desired. We can do that for you, if you would like. Lawrence § t/e 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. You have said that it's some minor internet message board, that's full of extremists like Stormfront. You seem to be saying that it's not notable and that it doesn't rate a Wikipedia article. So why haven't you nominated it for deletion on your own behalf? Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Elections - What's the point?

What is the point of including this? ...

During the 2004 U.S. Elections, Jerome Corsi, a Swift Boat Vet and co-author of the book Unfit for Command that attacked the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, apologized in the national media for comments that he made on Free Republic under the user name "jrlc" "describing Muslims and Catholics as pedophiles and Pope John Paul II as senile."^[1] The posts were never moderated and were discovered and publicized by Media Matters for America.^[2].

Some guy posted some stuff, political opponents picked up on it, and he apologized, calling it a joke. It doesn't seem very important, but maybe I'm missing something. Lou Sander (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I see the encyclopediac value of this section. "Non-notable guy slags famous people, apologizes" isn't a historically useful fact. Lawrence § t/e 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Corsi isn't "non-notable" - he has a Wikipedia biography. The relationship of Corsi to FR was one of the few occasions when FR has been reported on by the major media. From that perspective I'd say it's one of the most notable events mentioned in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what is important is that FR is occasionally reported on in the national media, why doesn't Wikipedia just say:

Postings on Free Republic sometimes gain national attention. During the runup to the 2004 U.S. presidential Elections, author Jerome Corsi posted a series of inflammatory comments on Free Republic. Some of his comments were repeated in national media, drawing an apology from Corsi, who said they were meant as a joke.^[3] a Swift Boat Vet and co-author of the book Unfit for Command that attacked the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, apologized in the national media for comments that he made on Free Republic under the user name "jrlc" "describing Muslims and Catholics as pedophiles and Pope John Paul II as senile. The posts were never moderated and were discovered and publicized by Media Matters for America.^[4].

The deleted material has a lot of not-very-relevant detail about who the guy is, what his book was about, what his screen name was, selected examples of his inflammatory comments/jokes, etc. IMHO, this isn't germane to an article about the forum in which he embarrassed himself. Lou Sander (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is FR a reliable source themselves on this matter? If so, to what extent? Lawrence § t/e 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postings by FR members are only suitable as sources for postings by FR members. Postings by the webmaster and non-postings hosted by the site (such as policies and purpose) are good sources for the site as a whole. For the topic of Corsi, only his own postings should be used as sources about himself. The postings of the webmaster may be used for his official view of the matter. But on the whole we should use 3rd-party sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will, how do you feel about Lawrence Cohen gutting the "Agents Provocateurs" section? And do you believe an FR moderator, talking about the moderators' experiences with trolls and vandals, is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article? Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which reference includes a known moderator - can you point to the assertion and source? The quote on agents provocateur appears to be from Chronicles (magazine) if so it should go directly to that website, or at least provide a proper citation with only a courtesy link to the FR page. We should avoid characterizing the comments and opinions of posters as much as possible because at some point it becomes original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the whole story, but I've seen disputes over the Chronicles citation. If somebody will provide details of where it is, I have special resources I can use to find a copy. If it's not available to me online, I'll find a paper copy, scan it, and post it off-Wiki where all concerned can see it. Lou Sander (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) PS - The Chronicles web site is down right now. The error message says "Bandwidth Exceeded." Lou Sander (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Lawrence Cohen's revert?

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the final revert (there were so many) by Lawrence Cohen on January 22. Also, please support your position by citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Remember, whenever a policy appears to contradict a guideline, policy wins.

Very strong oppose. Fighting off trolls and vandals (and others such as "MD4Bush" who do not have the best interest of the forum at heart) appears to be a notable part of the Free Republic story. Third party sources include the Scallon "agents provocateurs" quote, the O'Reilly "planted" quote and the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post stories about MD4Bush. With this third party support, the Freepers' statements in their own defense become notable and are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB policy, which trumps WP:RS guideline. Without those, the many strongly worded criticisms from barely notable sources such as Salon and the New York Observer are given too much weight, violating WP:WEIGHT, and should all be deleted per Lou Sander. The Pein "mob rule" quote was about blogs like LGF and Powerline, not forums like FR, so this quote is irrelevant and violates WP:WEIGHT. Please join me in opposing this revert. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting off trolls and vandals (and others There, you've already run onto a definitional problemsuch as "MD4Bush" who do not have the best interest of the forum at heartMD4BUSH was an e-mail scandal and didn't have anything to do with freerepublic's best interest) appears to be a notable part of the Free Republic storyperhaps among those who have been banned without notice or reason for failure to conform with the currently prevailing mobthink, but of course that would be a rare experience, so that set of people would necessarily be small. Third party sources include the Scallon "agents provocateurs" quote which doesn't mention trolls or vandals, and says the problem was pre-2000, the O'Reilly "planted" quote which also doesn't mention trolls or vandals and holds the website responsible for not moderating and the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post stories about MD4Bush an e-mail story. With this third party support, the Freepers' there is no such entiity as 'the Freepers'. What do they have, a Congress?!? statements in their own defense defense? Defense of what? If you want to use a wiki article for public relations problems, you won't succeed. You are advocating advocacy under the banner of NPOV become notable you misspelled "self-serving" hoppa that hepps heaps and are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB policy, which trumps WP:RS guideline. Without those, the many strongly worded criticisms you misspelled sourced observations from barely notable sources such as Salon and the New York Observer are given too much weight, violating WP:WEIGHT just because the articlee on Lizzie Borden spends a lot of time on shameful things she has done, doesn't mean we have to make up nice things to say about her so her matricide and patricide are not given undue weight., and should all be deleted per Lou Sander. The Pein "mob rule" quote was about blogs like LGF and Powerline which consist of two or three named people, not forums like FR which consist of hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous members of a potential and bragged about and pictured and Natalie Mainesed mob, so this quote is irrelevant and violates WP:WEIGHT. Please join me 'and the puppets in opposing this revert.

Double plus oppose consensus by puppetry IF such a thing were to occur . . . And support immediate lawful removal of unsourced content Eschoir (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. If there are problems with trolls and vandals, and if those problems are important enough to be in an encyclopedia article, there should be a section or subsection headed "Trolls and vandals." Specific examples could possibly be included. Lou Sander (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was once such a section. It was called "Leftist ... agents provocateurs." It has now been deleted. Do you support that deletion? Would you want the section restored? Samurai Commuter (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section was added by a banned user, Bryan From Palatine. Re-adding it is disallowed. We don't edit on behalf of banned editors. Lawrence § t/e 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Adolf Hitler said "The sky is blue" would you then say "No the sky is red"? Whatever you think of BryanFromPalatine does not matter about article content. His section he wrote had good content. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote it, you posted it. Article fine for months till Shibumi come. Since then, all hell break loOse. Sockpuppetry not honorable. Eschoir (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it must not have been well done. It IS possible to talk about trolls and vandalism without getting into controversial stuff. Just say there are problems with trolls and vandalism, source it, and give a NPOV example or two. Try hard not to include inflammatory quotes. If there aren't any sources other than FR posts, you're probably out of luck. If there aren't any sources, the trolls and vandalism maybe aren't such a big deal. Lou Sander (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Trolls are fairly commonplace, and apparently not notable. Eschoir (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Lawrence Cohen does not have consensus. Lawrence Cohen and Eschoir are trying to start edit war on this page now. This is not honorable. Please stop. Respect other editors. Save your accusations for proper location. Here you must assume good faith. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil

You have a sandbox, rewrite the article as you would write it. See if you can get consensus on a version. Eschoir (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did have consensus for the version that existed in the mainspace, just before you resumed edit warring this morning. Samurai Commuter (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're a "too proud to be anywhere but mainspace" kind o' guy?Eschoir (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus from who? Lawrence § t/e 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you see there is no consensus for your edits on January 22. WP:RS guideline does not defeat policy which allows self-published material from Free Republic in article about Free Republic. I will contact administrator to restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it backwards. I was asking Samurai Commuter where the claimed consensus was. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking to you Lawrence. You do not have consensus. See section above. Strong opposes. I also have found new online source for article. It is not in printed magazine so everyone can click on it and see it. No arguments please. http://www.flakmag.com/web/freerepublic.html Shibumi2 (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just convicted yourself of being a Bryan sockpupppet Eschoir (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did what? Is this out of order? Lawrence § t/e 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi again posts copy directly traceable to Bryan. HE is the source of the Wyldcard allegation, the Leftists . . . agents provocateurs" copy, and HE is the source for the 2001 FLAK magazine article linked by Shibumi2 Eschoir (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for magazine articles about Free Republic. I typed "magazine Free Republic" into Google. Do it yourself and see what you get. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Lou Sander (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Barton Wong Eschoir (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir is always searching for something negative that he can add to this article. Here is something else I found. I found Alexa rankings.

Yahoo: Number 1
Google: Number 2
New York Times: 239
Salon.com: 2,752
Slate: 2,867
Daily Kos: 4,883
Free Republic: 9,451
Democratic Underground: 12,193
Bartcop: 32,860
Buzzflash: 54,470
White Rose Society: 904,899

I cannot find Houston Review. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found Alexa about ten months ago and put it in the article - it got botted out. Eschoir (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Front Runner

In the article section on the mass-banning of Giuliani supporters, it describes Giuliani as the "republican front-runner." I don't think anyone would argue that this is still the case. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Lawrence Cohen did not have consensus for his reverts of January 22. [5] He was joining in edit war started by Eschoir. For this reason administrators should restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Thank you.

If any other editors have objections to this based on policy governing content then please post your objections here with citation of policy section that supports you. Objections based on false accusations of sockpuppet or proxy status should be made at WP:ANI or WP:RFAR not here. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch can you explain this please? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4968220 Shibumi2 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking... could the DU post linked to above be used as a source supporting the claim that trolls/agents come into Free Republic to do it harm? If they do it to an article about Free Republic, they'll do it to Free Republic itself.

And is Ben Burch maybe not the perfect guy/girl to be refactoring this article? Lou Sander (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators avoid making content edits or restoring previous versions of protected pages. I hope everyone will take the time until then to try to resolve the disagreements that led to the article being protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we also ask BenBurch to explain this please? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=24203&mesg_id=24203 Does BenBurch blame the Freepers for the death of his close personal friend, Andy Stephenson? Shouldn't we also ask Eschoir to explain this please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic Does Eschoir still have an axe to grind against FR after being banned for life from FR, creating 88 disruptive sockpuppets, and being blocked by a federal injunction nearly 10 years ago? Lou Sander, shouldn't we be asking whether either one of these two are maybe not the perfect guys/girls to be editing this article at all, under any circumstances? Inspector Callahan SFPD (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent first wiki-post! Welcome mystery consensus builder Eschoir (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All posters please note and comply: Per WP:TP, "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Lou Sander (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss

Silence can sometimes speak louder than words. In response to these requests to explain both Eschoir and BenBurch are silent. Inspector Callahan and Lou Sander please observe this. Protection on this article expires in 18 hours. Our repeated offers to discuss this content dispute have been ignored by BenBurch, Lawrence Cohen and Eschoir. Or they have responded with accusations which should be made elsewhere and resolved elsewhere.

I will post last version by Samurai Commuter on Sandbox page. I will once again invite Eschoir and BenBurch to explain why they are opposed to this version. This explanation must address all concerns about WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and be fully compliant with WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. If you do not post such well grounded objections here on Talk page then I will revert last edit by Lawrence Cohen and restore previous version by Samurai Commuter tomorrow morning.

I would prefer to discuss this in a cooperative and collaborative way. So please explain why you cannot stand "Agents provocateurs" section. It is well sourced. It explains presence of some of the objectionable material at Free Republic. Also please explain links provided above to Democratic Underground and to request by Samurai Commuter for clarification. These raise serious WP:COI issues. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox version is here. Please review and tell us what is wrong with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic/Sandbox "Agents provocateurs" section is supported by Scallon article, MD4Bush sources such as Washington Post and Baltimore Sun, and O'Reilly statement about "planted" remarks. Pein statement gives too much WP:WEIGHT to criticisms. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will revert regardless of what anybody does here. You already have reverted. Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. If you could produce a good reason based on content then I would not change one thing. Shibumi2 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's my edits. Eschoir (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I will review them and post my response here. Shibumi2 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article lead needs work but Lou Sander should do it.

Local chapters are connected to Free Republic because they make extensive use of its forum and they organize under its name. But they are not controlled by Free Republic. They are like adults in relationship with their own parents and grandparents. They share name and they get together sometimes but they are not controlled by their parents.

South Carolina chapter hosted "family reunion" with guest Katherine Harris. This is notable.

WP:SELFPUB allows Free Republic threads to be used as sources in article about Free Republic. Agents provocateurs section is therefore well sourced. Scallon article was printed in Chronicles magazine. If it is POV pushing then Salon quotations and New York Observer quotations would then go unanswered. O'Reilly criticisms would also go unanswered. If Agents Provocateurs section must be removed then Salon and Observer quotations and O'Reilly criticisms must also be removed to avoid POV pushing in other direction.

DC chapter protests often at Walter Reed hospital. Not just one member. Weekly reports in Free Republic forum. That section should be expanded. I encourage you to write it.

I see you are still trying to include "mob rule" quotation from Pein but without explanation. Like removal of Agents provocateurs this Pein quotation makes it POV pushing in other direction. Criticism from Salon and Observer and O'Reilly is more than enough. Shibumi2 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way, that "Lou Sander" should do it. Any article may be edited by any editor at any time, unless the community enforces a sanction in the form of blocking a user indefinitely (in which case, he may not edit any article ever under any username, and anyone pushing his favored edits will be blocked as him); unless the community enforces article sanctions--if the community decides a user is barred from an article, he's cut off; or unless the arbitration committee bars a user from an article(s). Lawrence § t/e 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local chapters are connected to Free Republic because they make extensive use of its forum and they organize under its name. But they are not controlled by Free Republic. They are like adults in relationship with their own parents and grandparents. They share name and they get together sometimes but they are not controlled by their parents.

If they are adults they should have their own articles. You don't include GW Bush stuff in GHW Bush article.

Peerhaps you missed this response for my request for third opinion:

Third opinion (repost)

Posts on Free Republic should not be used as sources. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are not self-contained independent sections. SPS tell us that "forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". SELFPUB tells us since the use of those forums is contentious and the identity of the authors cannot be ascertained that FR postings should not be used as sources. Most of the material in this article should be drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Harris did not attend the SC Chapter meeting, by the way, but a crook did. Notable? Eschoir (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Largely not acceptable" is not the same as "completely unacceptable." In some cases identity of authors (such as Kristinn) can be ascertained beyond doubt. In other cases (such as Admin Moderator) identity is protected for good reason but author clearly speaks on behalf of Free Republic. In other cases they are identified in this article only as "Freepers." Most of material in this article (and specifically in Agents Provocateurs section and MD4Bush section) is already drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" like Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Bill O'Reilly transcript and Chronicles magazine. Any mention of WyldCard has already been removed from article since you hate Bryan so much. Shibumi2 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is one of those rare circumstances that is outside the range of "largely not acceptable" and even if the identity of some posters can be ascertained, the use of the forum as a source is still highly contentious (which contraindicates the use of the forum as a source). Multiple outside opinions and noticeboard discussions have indicated that the forum postings should not be used as sources, for multiple policy-based and rational reasons. Please take that broader community input into consideration. Continually pushing contentious edits is generally considered disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have major, major problems with all these forum posts being used period for any purpose. They need to go and very soon. Their usage is against policy, tradition, and article norms. Lawrence § t/e 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed comments by Lou Sander about Jerome Corsi and agree that second half of paragraph should be removed. Jerome Corsi has his own article and this material belongs there. I will be adding a comment from Admin Moderator to Agents Provocateurs section to improve sourcing. Please review. http://www.freerepublic.com/~adminmoderator/ Shibumi2 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm removing that section if re-added again. It's non-notable. There is NO consensus to include it, and it's the pet project of a banned user, BryanFromPalatine. Any attempts to edit on the behalf of a banned user is a blockable action. Any user who wants to include material in ANY article, if challenged on it by other editors, must obtain consensus for it's inclusion. That is the way Wikipedia works. There is no consensus for that section as it keeps getting removed by multiple users. Obtain consensus from established logged-in users, and we can discuss this. Lawrence § t/e 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just declared your intention to start an edit war. Let everyone take note of the fact that Lawrence Cohen has issued an ultimatum and if it is not obeyed, he will start an edit war. 99.201.206.151 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Nice trolling. I said I would remove it. I didn't say I would remove it repeatedly each day. Anyone adding material on the behalf of banned users: thats a no-no. Lawrence § t/e 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding on behalf of banned user. I am adding on behalf of Shibumi2. If Adolf Hitler says "The sky is blue" will you say "No the sky is red"? If Pol Pot developed polio vaccine would you refuse to vaccinate your child? This is not about you. It is not about me. It is not about Bryan./ It is about content on Wikipedia. Agents Provocateurs section is good content for Wikipedia. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi2 also has his supporters. Subtract two people who have never even tried to explain their WP:COI problems, and one person who has followed him here from Talk:Waterboarding to harass him, and there would be no one deleting it. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that A) activities on Free Republic occasionally get national attention, and that B) the article ought to mention that. Surely B) can be done without including gory details that people get into edit wars over. It may require some troll suppression, but it CAN be done. Lou Sander (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed every trace of Free Republic discussion threads from Agents Provocateurs section. Bill O'Reilly thinks "planted" material is notable. Sean Scallon of Chronicles magazine thinks "agents provocateurs" are notable. Baltimore Sun and Washington Post thought "MD4Bush" was notable. This provides "other side of the story." I am using these sources plus Admin Moderator (official spokesman for Free Republic) to create new Agents Provocateurs section. You have no excuse to revert it. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Shibumi2. Even though WP:SELFPUB would normally allow the use of FR threads as sources in this article, the POV pushers with COI problems are making it "contentious." Maybe now they will stop avoiding those inconvenient questions about their COI problems. Or will they keep ducking and running from those questions to continue their edit war? It's up to them. Samurai Commuter (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing objectionable in the new section, though it IS a pretty lengthy way to say that bad guys sometimes infiltrate the site. Also, the link in Footnote 33, about the SC DOT employee, doesn't work right now. Lou Sander (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing NOTABLE about trolls. The moderation of those trolls has been the subject of much more RS material. Thus my section on "Moderation in the Defense of Liberty" in the sandbox. Eschoir (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose your "Moderation in the defense of liberty" section since it has never before been discussed, because this criticism of FR is already overrepresented by Salon and the Observer, and because Wikipedia is not your nasty little personal blog. I have restored Shibumi2's version. Please do not revert until you've demonstrated that your changes are supported by consensus.

I can't discuss things for you. Following Shibumi2s request I posted it at the sandbox yesterday, and there were no objections.

So tell me, you now object to the sources?Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you now that I object to your manipulation of the sources in this manner, because this type of criticism is already overrepresented by the Salon and Observer quotes. This article is not the bitter, mean-spirited personal blog of a Freeper who was banned for life. It is not a poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. It is an encyclopedia article. It must be NPOV.

I am also telling you now, for the third time, that I object to you chopping my Talk page edits into an incomprehensible mess when you respond.

You prefer your own manipulation of the sources, I guess, cherry-picking. You picked the sources, I just quoted more of them than you, more accurately representing the gravamen of their POV. You can't have it both ways, either they are RSs or not. What will it be?Eschoir (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi2, by ignoring your "Moderation in defense of liberty" section and posting his own version, demonstrated his opposition. Lou Sander, by stating his support for Shibumi2's version ("I see nothing wrong with it"), indicated that he opposes your alternate version. There is a consensus here and it opposes your version. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silence means consent under the law.Eschoir (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All open source websites have vandalism problems. Judging from the magnitude of their response, FR's vandalism problem is proportionate with Wikipedia's. As any editor working RC patrol can confirm, the problem is notable. Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis vandal problem has been previously noted

How would you propose to quantify 'the magnitude of their response'? Eschoir (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir: Please stop using this page as a soapbox. Lou Sander (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg your pardon? Eschoir (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir: please stop using this page, and in particular the article mainspace, as a soapbox. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is soapbox a term of art?Eschoir (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPs! Time to start attacking crotalus horridus!Eschoir (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir: Please stop using this page as a soapbox. Lou Sander (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg your pardon? I really don't understand what you're getting at.Eschoir (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protected

I have protected the page for 1 week in its current status. If the current situation continues, I think that we may need to protect it until the Samurai Commuter/Neutral Good/Eschoir situation is resolved via ArbCom, since these folks are like matter and anti-matter. SirFozzie (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any responsible editor, upon reviewing Eschoir's troubling edit history on this article, its Talk page and especially its Refactor page, and upon thoroughly reviewing his personal history with the Free Republic forum (easily found via Google), will come to the same conclusion I have reached: that person should not be editing this article. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure, that Eschoir would say the same about you considering you are supposedly, per several people, a reincarnation of a banned user (per the Waterboarding ArbCom evidence). If I had my way, the lot of you would be topic banned from this article and related articles. It's unfair to have to keep edit protecting this article to lock out other, productive editors, because certain folks have taken outside disputes here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-endorsement of Romney

Jim Robinson has given Mitt Romney the seal of disapproval: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961787/replies?c=107 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.148.172 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox and Refactor still open

I point out that the sandbox and refactor sites are still open for thohse sincerely interested in forging a consensus. Eschoir (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give us links, please. Lou Sander (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Lou Sander (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox Eschoir (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

refactor Eschoir (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody interested in editing anymore? Eschoir (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all?Eschoir (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple. No one wants to work with you. Except maybe people who hate Free Republic like you. Editing Wikipedia should be pleasant and teamwork experience. This is not your way. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Lou Sander (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is for edits, not talking about editors. I envision a moderation section - most of the heat and sound emitted from the site seem to be moderation based. There would be no clinton assassination story or Jenna Bush story or Corsi story or OReilley story if moderation had been tighterm but ironically moderation is too tight in the Giuliani and cokehead felon stories

Do y'all have any input? Eschoir (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tempest in a teapot." Most of the heat and sound emitted from the site consists of uncovering Killian Memo forgeries and planted Clinton backers at debate, and counter protests at Walter Reed Hospital and at Washington Mall with "Gathering of Eagles." These receive much attention from big media sources such as CNN and USA Today. These receive no attention from you. You try to limit discussion of these in article with many excuses or you try to make them seem insignificant. Instead you try to make this article about forum moderation policies which resulted in you being banned. These receive attention very rarely at small media sources like New York Observer. This is not about you. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have a registered account there in good standing. Eschoir (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, focus on the edits, not the editors, please? SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is edit based, and was going to be, if s/he is in good standing, to Freepmail and ask Racebannon, whose picture is displayed here, if he cares to be identified, and if so, how, as his screen name or given name. Eschoir (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking wastes my time. I prefer working. So I do not have accounts at Free Republic or Democratic Underground. I edit Wikipedia articles. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.Eschoir (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racebannon's pic

The upper picture is of the DC chapter, unconnected with FR and advertising itself on its homepage as 'independant.'

It should go as the article isn't about the DC Chapter.
Stay, but the caption should read "Members of the DC Chapter demonstrate. . ."
Racebannon publishes his name. He should be named in the caption. Eschoir (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it and fix the caption as suggested. No reason to identify the person by name or handle, and plenty of reasons not to. Also please try to do better at identifying the paragraph or picture you are referring to; I'm assuming you're talking about Image:FReepers.jpg. Lou Sander (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

md4bush

I tracked down the source of the Spruiell NRO quote. It doesn't mention Republilcans, nor freepers, nor entrapment. I propose the following change is necessary.

Some Republicans and Freepers have charged that Post reporter Matthew Mosk's access to the MD4Bush account constitutes complicity to the alleged entrapment of Steffen, and a violation of the privacy of Free Republic users.^[5] No legal remedy was sought by any of the parties.^{[citation needed]}

Mr. Taylor charged that Post reporter Matthew Mosk's access to the MD4Bush account was a violation of the Free Republic users agreement, and they were "looking into whether the Washington Post violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when Post reporter Matthew Mosk accessed the Free Republic account of MD4Bush."^[6]

Eschoir (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a source familiar with the MD4Bush postings, the e-mail address used in October 2004 to open the MD4Bush account is: ryanrock2004@yahoo.com.

Sources said that e-mail address was later changed to rodoherty@mddems.org, then changed for a third time to brianwaverly@yahoo.com. That third e-mail address remains as the address registered on the Free Republic account, which remains open.

According to Free Republic, anyone who has the password to the MD4Bush account could change the e-mail registration address at any time. It is not known how many people may have had access to that password.

The e-mail address information obtained does not shed light on the actual users of the MD4Bush account, nor does it reveal whether someone attached the Ryan O'Doherty e-mail address to the account without his knowledge.

WBAL report

Eschoir (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. You did not indicate when you posted this on Talk page that you were planning to add it to the article mainspace. This is pure speculation. It does not appear in Baltimore Sun or Washington Post. It appears in much less notable source with lower standards for fact-checking. It does not belong in this article. It may not even belong in MD4Bush Incident article since it is so speculative. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I hope I'm doing this right. Eschoir is infamous at Free Republic, even after being banned for ten years. Anything he wants to do to this article is immediately suspect. Gt2008 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Gt2008 and Shibumi2. Eschoir is one of the most notorious trolls on the Internet. His work on this article is extremely suspect. His explanations are opaque. Consensus is difficult or impossible, because Eschoir drives off editors who don't share his agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning Comments like the one above will stop immediately if folks do not want to be blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in the lead

The recently-added citation doesn't seem to support the sentence to which it is appended. A larger problem is that the lead in general is pretty non-specific about what Free Republic actually is.

The Free Republic home page has some pretty good information about what Free Republic is. I am in favor of including that information, and prefacing it with something like "According to its home page, Free Republic is..."

IMHO, this would not be controversial to most readers, and would come from a legitimate source of information about Free Republic. If there is agreement on this, I have some specific wording to propose. Lou Sander (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the home page a bad source, but put what you got up in the sandbox.Eschoir (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the source - it confuses Free Republic with FRN, which is defunct as we knnow. Need better sourcingEschoir (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probation rules

In addition to the probationary rules set out above, let me set out what I understand to be the current more stringent standards for an article on probation:

No reversion, except for good cause shown and talked.
New material must be from better than normal sources - which means no questionable sources.
Reliably sourced new information is deleted at risk of sanction.
Questionably sourced or unsourced additions are deletable w/o penalty.
If the article belies the footnote, it may be rewritten.
Rewritten sections must be posted for discussion before adding to mainspace.

Eschoir (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The Arbitration Committee has at least two levels of probation and this article is under the less stringent standard. Otherwise you would have been banned from this article on 13 January. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_of_modifications_of_sanctions_on_Free_Republic Support, and FYI]. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix 4

The noteworthy quote in the Killian papers from App. 4 is not notewrothy in this context as it has next to nothing to do with Free republic. It does not reflect back or confirm Mr MacDougald's criticism of the proportional font, which incidentally was pretty wrong and noted as such almost immediately, and it is not the conclsion of the panel. I propse it's deletion for cause. Eschoir (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The quotation shows that CBS expert agrees "Buckhead" was right in claiming that Killian documents were not authentic. It is very noteworthy. This may be the single most noteworthy event in the history of Free Republic but you seek to undermine it and minimize it always. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The panel did not concur. Though it did credit MacDougald in footnote 85 Eschoir (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced

The south carolina Free Times story link doesn't link anywhere and will be deleted for cause if better sourcing cant be found. The O'Reilly sentence does a good job of misrepresenting what he actually said. Eschoir (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Always you try to remove evidence which shows people who do not agree with Free Republic are disrupting and vandalizing their forum. You also try to introduce more criticism of Free Republic. This is always the consistent theme of your edits and proves you cannot oversome your WP:COI. O'Reilly actually said "planted." Other things he actually said are well represented by Salon and Observer quotations. Providing more space for criticism would violate WP:WEIGHT. There is more criticism in this article than in Stormfront article. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR request to change probation terms

See here, and weigh in there on the RFAR page in that section. Lawrence § t/e 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more useful rules

Defending interests

In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will also be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

The intermediate territory will naturally contain some grey areas. In many articles, criticism tends to collect in a separate section. There you may find properly referenced reports of well-publicised debates next to vague assertions that "Some people say X, while others think Y." Treat everything on its merits. Ask for reliable sources. Before removing a whole criticism section or article and distributing its parts over other sections of the article, which may be the best way ahead, consult other editors on the Talk page. Use crisp, informative edit summaries to detail what you have done, an excellent way to establish your reputation as a diligent editor. Raise any less obvious reasoning as a note on the talk page, with any additional links that support your edits.

WP:WEIGHT and WP:COI

Please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:COI.

Legal antagonists

If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. Even a minor slip up in neutrality in a court-case article on Wikipedia for an active case-in-progress could potentially be noticed by the courts or their parties, and this could potentially cause real-world harm, not just harm to Wikipedia. Because of this, we strongly discourage editing when this type of conflict exists.

Neutrality and verifiability

A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article. Shibumi2 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored the sections I posted to direct your attention to the sections I believe to be most important in your case Eschoir. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is edit warring?

Edit warring is not necessarily characterized by any single action, instead it is characterized by any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. Identifying edit warring is often a judgment call administrators must make when cooling disputes. There are several measures that administrators currently use to determine when a user is engaged in edit warring.

The most common measure of edit warring is the three-revert rule, often abbreviated 3RR. The three-revert rule is a useful tool for measuring edit warring, as it posits that surpassing the absolute limit of three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours constitutes edit warring. While the three-revert rule is not to be interpreted blindly, reaching this threshold is generally a strong sign that there is serious misconduct afoot. The 3RR metric is not intended as an exemption for all conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits.

Edit warring is a distinct behavior characterized by a confrontational attitude. It is different in spirit than bold, revert, discuss cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is never edit-warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism.

Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

Eschoir (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Website

Definitely, this is standard. Lawrence § t/e 05:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Eschoir, Shibumi2, I strongly suggest that you start discussing the latest addition/removal before doing it any more. We don't want the page to be protected yet again on an arbitrary M:The Wrong Version Also please note, there's a discussion of possibly adding ability for administrators to sanction edit warriors, up to and including a topic ban or a general probation. SirFozzie (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss before adding reliably sourced content?Eschoir (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't hurt. SirFozzie (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article is still defacto protected. Eschoir (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie's suggestion makes a lot of sense. It would allow the rest of us to comment on edits before they are made. DCLawyer (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, who are 'the rest of us' you refer to? You have never edited this article, at least under this account name. Eschoir (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about that myself, as well. Lawrence § t/e 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By 'the rest of us', I mean editors with some knowledge of the subject matter, who are reluctant to make edits to the article because of the disputatious nature of some of the regular editors. Many of us know how to use Google, how to recognize conflicts of interest, and when to suspend the assumption of good faith. DCLawyer (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now the interrogation starts again for another newcomer. I have previously objected to Pein quotation twice on 28 January and 29 January. Eschoir ignores this. Please read this section: WP:NPOV#Neutrality_and_verifiability. "The rest of us" refers to DCLawyer, Lou Sander, Shibumi2 and anyone else who doesn't want people who have WP:COI to WP:OWN this article. Shibumi2 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say that, Eschoir, is that it would be helpful for new administrators coming into this conflict to understand just who's trying to improve the article, and possibly, who's just trying to argue out of bloodymindednesss, do you understand? SirFozzie (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand bloody-mindedness also includes stubbornness. Members of FreeRepublic have been editing here as groups (see us above) in order to wear down neutral editors since at least October 2005. I'm sure if you wanted my opinion about anything, you would ask. Eschoir (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that you are neutral on this subject matter? Shibumi2 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".'Eschoir (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have not simply labeled your edits "POV." We have repeatedly explained on this Talk page many details about why they are POV. Please answer my question. Do you believe that you are neutral on this subject matter? Please also read this section: WP:NPOV#Neutrality_and_verifiability. Here is another section from WP:COI:

Non-controversial edits

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as:

Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.

To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial.

..... This is what editors with WP:COI problems should limit themselves to doing on this article. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements constitute personal attacks. I recommend you try dispute resolution rather than further taking up this article talk page. Eschoir (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like Shibumi is attacking me. She's just pointing out some reasonable rules. How can any good faith editor see it otherwise? DCLawyer (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir why do you feel this is personal attack? I am only citing Wikipedia policies and asking you to obey them. Wikipedia has rules regarding WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Please obey them. You have persisted in making controversial edits despite your COI. None of us has ever agreed to any of your edits. Many of us have objected when you proposed them here on Talk page. Good reasoning and policy supports my position. Please obey WP:COI rules about these types of non-controversial edits you are allowed to make. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of problem editors

Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:

You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.: There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[6] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

More reasonable rules Eschoir (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freeper?

Alright, this is probably just a minor oversight by people who have looked at this page a lot, but the page doesn't really define what a "freeper" is, it just gets into calling them that. While it does become obvious eventually, I think a sentence simply stating that "users of the Free Republic website are often called 'freepers'" or something like that would be a good addition. 128.252.78.81 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a sourcing problem.Eschoir (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? The term "Freeper" is used in the New York Observer story cited in the article, and in one of the quotations about "freeping" polls. It's also not controversial (that is, it's not expressive of a POV the way "Freeptard" is). I agree with the anon that this would be worth explaining at first occurrence. JamesMLane t c 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JamesMLane. There is nothing controversial about using the term. It is mentioned in many, many places outside FreeRepublic, and numerous times on their home page. I don't see any specific "sourcing problem," but if there is one, it should be explained. Lou Sander (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucianne Goldberg ("Trixie") coined the word, supposedly inspired by the Detroit Free Press, but I can't source it reliably, though there are intereseting sources out there. Eschoir (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this Eschoir (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you propose adding these to this article mainspace then I object. You object to using Free Republic threads because they are self-published. This "Sweetness-Light" blog is also self-published so it is not reliable source per WP:RS and WP:V. Urban Dictionary also fails reliable source criteria. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proven "Reliable Source" for Freeper def: "Freepers, as the sites denizens are known" ^[7] Any problems w/ Tossell as RS?

Eschoir (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of the word "Freeper" and a simple, NPOV definition thereof. It should be very early in the article, and should simply say that these people are commonly called Freepers. An inline source or two could be included, and maybe should be, considering all the controversy here. An etymology is NOT needed, IMHO. By "NPOV definition," I mean there shouldn't be the slightest hint of any positive or negative connotation involved with the word or the people to whom it applies.

Considering the past controversies, I believe that the person making the edit should post something on this page saying "I propose to make the following change to the article: 'These folks are called Freepers blah, blah, etc.'" Be VERY specific about the wording and where you want to put it. Leave the proposal here long enough to draw some comments, wait until it has some, then either make the change, or alter it in accordance with the comments, or drop it. If it gets no comments after, say, two weeks, put it in exactly as proposed. Lou Sander (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any discussion before the latest additions but for sourcing Freeper

Reminder:

Eschoir, Shibumi2, I strongly suggest that you start discussing the latest addition/removal before doing it any more. We don't want the page to be protected yet again on an arbitrary M:The Wrong Version Also please note, there's a discussion of possibly adding ability for administrators to sanction edit warriors, up to and including a topic ban or a general probation. SirFozzie (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss before adding reliably sourced content?Eschoir (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. SirFozzie (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your changes are premature, in view of SirFozzie's leadership.Eschoir (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look at the changes, but I agree with Eschoir. This is a hugely controversial article. EVERYTHING should be posted on the talk page before it is added to the article. It doesn't need to be AGREED TO by everybody, but it ought to be DISCUSSED by everybody. That is where good faith, or the lack of it, reasonableness, or the lack of it, etc. can be seen and followed by all. Even if you're only going to change a comma, mention it here first. Lou Sander (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great point. Eschoir in general and more often than not has done this. When no object is raised, on several instances, he's gone ahead with the changes. A day later, Shibumi or someone else arrives indignantly claiming how outrageous the changes were, and RVs them. That's also a major problem. Lawrence § t/e 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This motion was just passed by a majority of the Arbitration Committee and now is in effect.

' In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

So, I request the following rules be observed:

A) ALL additions and subtractions from the article, other than minor grammatical and spelling fixes, be determined on the talk page first, if at all possible. That means giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to comment on proposed changes (I'm not going to set a hard and fast line in the sand, but I would think a day or so would be fine. but I'm willing to be persuaded

B) The sniping at each other stops now, please. Let's work together instead of against each other.

C) I, or other administrators, will warn users on their talk page before any probationary measures are taken. SirFozzie (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your proposed Rule A. If one editor makes a change that a second editor considers improper, the second editor can revert it and initiate the discussion on the talk page. Where there's a genuine good-faith controversy, the normal assumption would be that the first editor won't re-insert the change without allowing time for discussion. Is it naive of me to hope that at least some edits other than minor grammatical and spelling fixes would be generally accepted without prior discussion? JamesMLane t c 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, yes. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Lou said. I think anyone who is here without an agenda will have no problems with these rules. Lawrence § t/e 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lawrence, and with the rules. Lou Sander (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a problem with these rules. We all have long to-do lists and we must all decide which articles deserve our time. Making any improvements to this article will, under current conditions, be unnecessarily difficult. For example, the "agents provocateurs" quotation is now in the article twice. Apparently, if I remove one of the duplications without discussing it here first, at least three editors will conclude that I have an agenda or that I'm being uncivil.

I haven't been all that active on the article lately, but this latest development prompts me to take the step I've thought of before but lacked the willpower to do: I'm unwatchlisting it. Happy editing, all. Drop me a note on my talk page if there's an RfC or a straw poll or something you think I might want to !vote on. JamesMLane t c 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposed edits

Propose reversion of last three edits as undiscussed and not even edit summarized, plus inclusion of Columbia Journalizm Review quote

The Columbia Journalism Review wrote "But on close examination the scene looks less like a victory for democracy than a case of mob rule."^[8]

in an appropriate place in the Kilian section.Eschoir (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. I have posted my explanation for opposing quote from Corey Pein in Columbia Journalism Review at least twice: on 26 January and 28 January. Here it is again. His "mob rule" criticism is very much like criticisms by Jeff Stein (in Salon) and New York Observer which already give this article more criticism than Stormfront article. Salon and Observer already represent this criticism abundantly. Adding quote from Corey Pein therefore violates WP:WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV. My first edit on 20 February resolves your "dead link" complaint (which once again seeks to remove sourced positive material about Free Republic) by sourcing print edition rather than online edition of Columbia Free Times, a popular weekly newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina. My second edit restores section header and adds Scallon quote already embodied in "Rquote" feature which I introduced to this article several months ago. Rquote feature enlarges important quote already in the article. Another editor complained of Scallon quote appearing twice because of Rquote. Natalie Maines quote also appears twice due to Rquote but he did not complain about that. This is standard procedure for Rquote feature. Rquotes, section headers (such as Agents Provocateurs) and photos break up the long gray appearance of these articles, and make them more attractive to the eyes of readers. My third edit on 20 February added "known as Freepers" to article lead. This change has been thoroughly discussed here on Talk page. There is my "edit summary" since you insist. Shibumi2 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His "mob rule" criticism is very much like criticisms by Jeff Stein (in Salon) and New York Observer which already give this article more criticism than Stormfront article. Salon and Observer already represent this criticism abundantly. Adding quote from Corey Pein therefore violates WP:WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV.

Absolutely does not violate any part of WP:WEIGHT, there is no limit on sourced content.

My first edit on 20 February resolves your "dead link" complaint (which once again seeks to remove sourced positive material about Free Republic) by sourcing print edition rather than online edition of Columbia Free Times, a popular weekly newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina.

I question whether this is positive about FR, but you have no personal knowlege about the print edition, you are not claiming to have the paper in your ppossession, are you?

My second edit restores section header and adds Scallon quote already embodied in "Rquote" feature which I introduced to this article several months ago. Rquote feature enlarges important quote already in the article. Another editor complained of Scallon quote appearing twice because of Rquote. Natalie Maines quote also appears twice due to Rquote but he did not complain about that. This is standard procedure for Rquote feature. Rquotes, section headers (such as Agents Provocateurs) and photos break up the long gray appearance of these articles, and make them more attractive to the eyes of readers.

But it is a misquote, and successor to a line of identical misquotes going back to banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Iit has been rejected each time because first it cherry-picks the very questionable source to say something not supported by the source and second it is posted in support of a banned user.

My third edit on 20 February added "known as Freepers" to article lead. This change has been thoroughly discussed here on Talk page.

But you didn't source it. Eschoir (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pein quote absolutely violates WP:WEIGHT since there are already many similar criticisms of Free Republic in this article. Specifically it violates this section. Shortcut identifies it as part of WP:WEIGHT: WP:WEIGHT#Neutrality_and_verifiability. I remind you again there is more already criticism in this article than in Stormfront article. Columbia Free Times is weekly newspaper available on microfilm at public library. Back issues are available directly from publisher if you do not have library in your city.[7] This article appeared in weekly issue dated 22 August 2000. Scallon quote is not a misquote. Your claim is inaccurate. Full text of Scallon article is available online here. Since you do not like that site for proof of anything except what you want to prove, here is another. This quote is absolutely accurate, word for word, from article by Scallon. Also I have previously explained that I do not edit on behalf of any user except Shibumi2. But when I see good content I will add it. I do not care where it came from or who added it first if reliably sourced. If Pol Pot invented the polio vaccine would you refuse to vaccinate your child Eschoir? "Freeper" reference in lead is now sourced to Jeff Stein article in Salon. Since article by Stein is already cited in this article, and since it is very negative article about Free Republic, I do not believe there will be any more complaints from you about sourcing for the word "Freeper." Shibumi2 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pein quote absolutely violates WP:WEIGHT since there are already many similar criticisms of Free Republic in this article. Specifically it violates this section.

I see no sentence in the cite applicable to your contention. And you do not contend that you have seen the Free Press quote eitherin print or microfiche, though you could have. It remains unsourced. And the Scallon header quote is a misquoteEschoir (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

md4bush:

I tracked down the source of the Spruiell NRO quote. It doesn't mention Republilcans, nor freepers, nor entrapment. I propose the following change is necessary.

DELETE

Some Republicans and Freepers have charged that Post reporter Matthew Mosk's access to the MD4Bush account constitutes complicity to the alleged entrapment of Steffen, and a violation of the privacy of Free Republic users.^[9] No legal remedy was sought by any of the parties.^{[citation needed]}

LEAVE IN

Mr. Taylor charged that Post reporter Matthew Mosk's access to the MD4Bush account was a violation of the Free Republic users agreement, and they were "looking into whether the Washington Post violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when Post reporter Matthew Mosk accessed the Free Republic account of MD4Bush."^[10]

AND ADD

The e-mail address used in October 2004 to open the MD4Bush account was ryanrock2004@yahoo.com. That e-mail address was later changed to rodoherty@mddems.org, then changed for a third time to brianwaverly@yahoo.com. Anyone who has the password to the MD4Bush account could change the e-mail registration address at any time. It is not known how many people may have had access to that password.

The e-mail address information obtained does not shed light on the actual users of the MD4Bush account, nor does it reveal whether someone attached the Ryan O'Doherty e-mail address to the account without his knowledge.WBAL report

Eschoir (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is is too much, and too complicated, for me to understand without burdensome research. I wouldn't necessarily oppose it on substantive grounds, but I don't think it's a proper way to propose a change, either. My notion of a proper proposal to change a highly controversial article is something like this:

An edit on (date) changed X to Y (verbatim quotes for both of them, please). I propose it be reverted so that X appears in the article.

That way, all could see what is being proposed. It would be one specific, easy to comprehend change. There would be little or no chance of deception or chicanery by the proposer. Lou Sander (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Eschoir, it might be easier to just, in sections: "Lets change x to y. For reason z." Lawrence § t/e 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Let's delete

Some Republicans and Freepers have charged that Post reporter Matthew Mosk's access to the MD4Bush account constitutes complicity to the alleged entrapment of Steffen, and a violation of the privacy of Free Republic users.^[11] No legal remedy was sought by any of the parties.^{[citation needed]}

leave in

Mr. Taylor charged that Post reporter Matthew Mosk's access to the MD4Bush account was a violation of the Free Republic users agreement, and they were "looking into whether the Washington Post violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when Post reporter Matthew Mosk accessed the Free Republic account of MD4Bush."^[12]

FOR REASON because I tracked down the source of quote X. The source doesn't mention Republicans, nor freepers, nor entrapment. Quote Y accurately represents the source.

AND ADD

The e-mail address used in October 2004 to open the MD4Bush account was ryanrock2004@yahoo.com. That e-mail address was later changed to rodoherty@mddems.org, then changed for a third time to brianwaverly@yahoo.com. Anyone who has the password to the MD4Bush account could change the e-mail registration address at any time. It is not known how many people may have had access to that password.

The e-mail address information obtained does not shed light on the actual users of the MD4Bush account, nor does it reveal whether someone attached the Ryan O'Doherty e-mail address to the account without his knowledge.WBAL report

Sourced neutral content from a Republican-leaning news bureau Eschoir (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. This material is very speculative and unreliable. It does not appear in more reliable sources already used for this section such as Washington Post and Baltimore Sun. Furthermore it goes into far too much detail and belongs in MD4Bush Incident article if it belongs in Wikipedia at all. Not here. As always you seek to undermine or remove sourced positive material about Free Republic, this time with pure speculation seeking to exonerate O'Doherty. There is no proof that WBAL-TV is "Republican-leaning news bureau." Shibumi2 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey, I don't think that "As always you seek to undermine or remove sourced positive material about Free Republic, this time with pure speculation seeking to exonerate O'Doherty." is "commenting on the article, not the contributor," as advocated/required/or whatever by the WP:NPA policy. At the same time, I, too, wonder if stuff like this belongs in the article. But I'm not a subject matter expert, so I don't really have a lot to say about it. "Republican-leaning... etc. is just some guy's opinion on the talk page. I don't think it needs much proof. Lou Sander (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This material is very speculative and unreliable.

easy to say. In fact it is not speculative at all. As to reliability, Free Republic is the source

It does not appear in more reliable sources already used for this section such as Washington Post and Baltimore Sun.

All the more reason to include it.

Furthermore it goes into far too much detail and belongs in MD4Bush Incident article if it belongs in Wikipedia at all. Not here.

Perhaps, but you would leave the extant material as is, which has proved to be false. The article needs to eliminate the false cites, wouldn't you agree? And neeeds to repalce them with something

As always you seek to undermine or remove sourced positive material about Free Republic, this time with pure speculation seeking to exonerate O'Doherty.

Your P.O.V. is here revealed. You oppose inclusion of material that could exonerate O'Doherty, in your words, because you are not neutral. I don't judge whether O'Doherty was MD4Bush, but he doesn't have to be exonerated of anything because he hasn't been charged with doing anything wrong. Except by anonymous Freepers. You are pushing a POV. And how does this undermine or remove sourced positive material about Free Republic exactly? How is any aspect of MD4Bush positive for FR? And why would it be important to include such material, positing its existance, merely because it is positive? First it has to be notable, then it has to be sourced.Eschoir (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESCHOIR & SHIBUMI2: You've GOT to stop analyzing/commenting on/talking to other editors. (I know I'm talking to editors here, but it's in an effort to improve behavior, not to make or comment on edits.) My eyes glaze over at all that stuff. The glaze gets thicker when you (plural) post great walls of intricately interwoven text, discussing fine points of the history and genealogy of FreeRepublic and this article. Sheesh! I REALLY want to help here, and I think I have the skills to do it. But it's just not worth it when I have to contemplate reading through all this stuff in order to make sense of it. Lou Sander (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References (temporary)

^ Anti-Kerry book author sorry for slurs USA Today. 8/10/2004
^ [1]
^ Anti-Kerry book author sorry for slurs USA Today. 8/10/2004
^ [2]
^ Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.
^ Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.
^ Tossell, Ivor. "Free Republic: glass ant farm for zealots" The Globe And Mail, 20 October 2006.
^ [3]
^ Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.
^ Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.
^ Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.
^ Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

I put this section here so we could check the references in the above proposed change. It's early in the morning, and my mind isn't clear enough to comprehend all the implications of the proposed changes from "OK let's change" onward, but it seems to me that they are proper and well-sourced, and that they would improve the article. Lou Sander (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lawrence § t/e 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus clearly exists for inclusion of WBAL material in MD4Bush section, but in the interests of comity I will refrain from that edit for a little while. But the sentence "Some Republicans and Freepers . . . " was proposed for deletion on Feb 7, on grounds it was not supported by the source, and absolutely no one has defended it since. So it's gone. Eschoir (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agents provocateur

Both Free Republic moderators and external sources have described the persistent presence of "left-wing trolling" on the Free Republic forums.[33][22] One such case, the MD4Bush Incident, received a modicum of publicity. In another case, a South Carolina state employee was forced to resign after allegedly engaging in disruption of Free Republic forums from his workplace computer.[34] Sean Scallon of Chronicles magazine described this phenomenon: "Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs."[22] Moderation was later added to the site in an attempt to combat disruptive posting, but conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly suggested in July 2007 that left-wing "vandals" were still creating "planted" posts to discredit the forum.[35]

This passage has a thesis: The embarassing content referred to in criticism is being put on FR not by membership but by liberal agents provocateurs, for the purose of making it look bad. In order to support that thesis, the passage contains content that either come from sources that are out of bounds, or that misrepresents the source.

Startiing with the header, there is no "leftist" in the original. It is a purposeful misquote.

Then Both Free Republic moderators and external sources have described the persistent presence of "left-wing trolling" on the Free Republic forums.^[1]^[2]

The homepage of a Freeper is not a source. 'Persistant' is made up. There is non source that mentions 'left-wing trolling' it's a made up quote.

One such case, the MD4Bush Incident, received a modicum of publicity.

MD4Bush was not left wing trolling.

In another case, a South Carolina state employee was forced to resign after allegedly engaging in disruption of Free Republic forums from his workplace computer.^[3]

No mention of trolling, besides non-notable and unsourced. Quote misrepresents this source guy was forced to resign for using government computer for personal political businesss not disruption, that word disruptor was added to title by the poster, whose handle is the same as a banned sockpuppet here.

Sean Scallon of Chronicles magazine described this phenomenon: "Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs."^[2]

No mention that this was in 19999, besides soourcing problems.

Moderation was later added to the site in an attempt to combat disruptive posting, but conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly suggested in July 2007 that left-wing "vandals" were still creating "planted" posts to discredit the forum.^[4]

the quoted left wing 'vandals' is a made up quote. Vandl deosn't appear in the source and reflects thePOV of the editor. Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading after "Certain parties have a thesis." So, probably did a bunch of others. Lou Sander (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the personal tenor of that paragraph, which I have refactored. Old habits die hard.Eschoir (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose if you are attempting to remove this paragraph Eschoir. Words such as "vandals" and "disruptors" are accurate characterizations based on statements by Admin Moderator and other moderators at Free Republic, and court documents filed against notorious "ubertroll" disruptor by the attorney for Free Republic. (Perhaps the solution to these sourcing complaints is to link those documents and use them as sources.) Reliable sources have been cited such as Free Times newspaper article, Chronicles magazine article, and transcript of Bill O'Reilly show. Shibumi2 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, statements by Admin Moderator and other moderators at Free Republic are not reliable sources, even if this article were not on probation. It doesn't matter if reliable sources have been cited such as Free Times newspaper article, Chronicles magazine article, and transcript of Bill O'Reilly show, if the proposition for which they are cited don't appear in the source. Mischaracterization is not good editing. Rewrite it so it reflects reality. The words "vandal" and "disruptors" don't appear in the sources. Eschoir (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I must offer different solution. This section has become a target for constant objections by certain editors. Most objections arise from sourcing. This proposal will end any complaints about sourcing permanently. I propose deletion of word "vandals" since it cannot be supported by sources reliable enough to meet your stringent criteria. Instead we should use the word "disruptors" exclusively. Here is very reliable source. You have used it yourself. Another editor use it also in L.A. Times v. Free Republic article. It is called Tech Law Journal. This is sworn statement by Jim Robinson himself. It is not self-published. There is no doubt who wrote it. It meets all requirements of WP:RS and uses this word: "disrupt." From this word no one can object to use of word "disruptors."

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/19991029rob.htm

Therefore I propose the addition of this paragraph and blockquote to Free Republic article.

In a sworn affidavit filed in the L.A. Times v. Free Republic lawsuit, founder and owner Jim Robinson described the activities of a liberal disruptor on the Free Republic forum:

"[He] has on many occasions declared his abiding hostility toward Free Republic and toward me personally. … This is consistent with his self-described 'ceaseless work to put FR in the worse possible light,' … and his prolific use of a large number of pseudonyms on the Free Republic site. … I have on many occasions revoked [his] posting privileges on Free Republic because of the abusive conduct … He has registered on Free Republic under as many as fifty (50) different pseudonyms, counsels others on how to do so, and further describes how he uses these many pseudonyms to harass, annoy and disrupt Free Republic and James Robinson. … He exults over the distress he hopes [he] has caused me by using so many different pseudonyms to disrupt the Free Republic site."^[5]

For consensus all editors please declare your support or opposition to removing the word "vandals," replacing it with the word "disruptors" and adding this paragraph and blockquote.

Strongly Support. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Giuliani section

Propose deletion or reduction of Giuliani section, or combination with earlier section, as no longer notable.

Including Columbia Journalism Review quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of this section: [8] It is not from Columbia Journalism Review. It is from New York Observer. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Free Republic homepage of "Admin Moderator"
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Scallon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ <--http://www.free-times.com/News&comm/newsindex.html but article was published in print edition of weekly newspaper and is available-->Ward, Eric Kenneth. "Politics Can Be Dangerous For State Employees." Columbia (S.C.) Free Times, Aug. 22, 2000.
^ http://mediamatters.org/items/200708010014 The O'Reilly Factor July 31, 2007
^ Statement of James Robinson. Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic. U.S. District Court, C.D.Cal., Case No. 98-7840. October 1999.

[1] Anti-Kerry book author sorry for slurs USA Today. 8/10/2004

[2] [1]

[3] Anti-Kerry book author sorry for slurs USA Today. 8/10/2004

[4] [2]

[5] Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

[6] Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

[Tossell-7] Tossell, Ivor. "Free Republic: glass ant farm for zealots" The Globe And Mail, 20 October 2006.

[8] [3]

[9] Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

[10] Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

[11] Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

[12] Sprueill, Stephen. "Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?" National Review Online, November 10, 2005.

[13] Free Republic homepage of "Admin Moderator"

[Scallon-14] Cite error: The named reference Scallon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[15] <--http://www.free-times.com/News&comm/newsindex.html but article was published in print edition of weekly newspaper and is available-->Ward, Eric Kenneth. "Politics Can Be Dangerous For State Employees." Columbia (S.C.) Free Times, Aug. 22, 2000.

[16] ttp://mediamatters.org/items/200708010014 The O'Reilly Factor July 31, 2007

[17] Statement of James Robinson. Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic. U.S. District Court, C.D.Cal., Case No. 98-7840. October 1999.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 802: / Line 802: @@
 ::Once again, statements by Admin Moderator and other moderators at Free Republic are not reliable sources, even if this article were not on probation.  It doesn't matter if reliable sources have been cited such as Free Times newspaper article, Chronicles magazine article, and transcript of Bill O'Reilly show, if the proposition for which they are cited don't appear in the source.  Mischaracterization is not good editing.  Rewrite it so it reflects reality.  The words "vandal" and "disruptors" don't appear in the sources. [[User:Eschoir|Eschoir]] ([[User talk:Eschoir|talk]]) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-Once again I must offer different solution. This section has become a target for constant objections by certain editors. Most objections arise from sourcing. This proposal will end any complaints about sourcing permanently. I propose deletion of word "vandals" since it cannot be supported by sources reliable enough to meet your stringent criteria. Instead we should use the word "disruptors" exclusively. Here is very reliable source. You have used it yourself. Another editor use it also in [[L.A. Times v. Free Republic]] article. It is called Tech Law Journal. This is sworn statement by Jim Robinson himself. It is not self-published. There is no doubt who wrote it. It meets all requirements of [[WP:RS]] and uses this word: "disruption."
+Once again I must offer different solution. This section has become a target for constant objections by certain editors. Most objections arise from sourcing. This proposal will end any complaints about sourcing permanently. I propose deletion of word "vandals" since it cannot be supported by sources reliable enough to meet your stringent criteria. Instead we should use the word "disruptors" exclusively. Here is very reliable source. You have used it yourself. Another editor use it also in [[L.A. Times v. Free Republic]] article. It is called Tech Law Journal. This is sworn statement by Jim Robinson himself. It is not self-published. There is no doubt who wrote it. It meets all requirements of [[WP:RS]] and uses this word: "disrupt." From this word no one can object to use of word "disruptors."
 http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/19991029rob.htm