Talk:Democratic Underground/Archive 4

message: Is there a reason that we are using a blog when there is a substantially better, critical source that does not fail WP:EL? We had come to substantial agreement that the DUF link sucked and that a link that did not violate WP:EL would be better. What changed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of other sites that are the same as DUFU.  How are they somehow okay, but DuFu is not?--Tbeatty 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we reached any substantial consensus regarding the DUmmie FUnnies link in this article or whether it violates WP:EL.--RWR8189 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was consensus that if we found a better link - which we found, the blog would go. Apparently the politics edit warriors don't like that consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there was a consensus that if a better link was found that it would go.  I have seen no consensus that the link which replaced Dummie Funnies was better.  In fact its somewhat inactive, whereas dummie funnies are updated 5 to 7 times a week Dman727 02:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dman is correct. The new link sucks. I don't agree that DUFU sucks. It should be relisted.Crockspot 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm reinserting the DUFU link, the present one speaks to one event that happened quite a while ago.--RWR8189 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support readding DUFU.  While I suspect it may restir the pot, its a superior link to the rather inactive replacement Dman727 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not single purpose.  Just sour grapes from someone who disagrees with my support.  
Thank you, single purpose accounts, for acting with the single purpose of engaging in wikipedia as a game. Your contibutions make life harder for the rest of us. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: People who insist on including the link have the obligation to show the link fails to violate WP:EL - the old discussion had all of the not-politics-edit-warriors in strong agreement that the two articles were far better than a blog that engages in WP:OR, which is a massive violation of our WP:EL policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WTF? SPA account.  I've not touched the DUFU link in ages, and somebody is apparently blind to my other contribtutions.  WHat BS! Could someone kindly advise me on how to answer this person who doesnt like my opinion? Also I welcome you do submit my id for socket puppetry identification - Its your time to waste.  Dman727 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violating [[WP:EL]] 

message: I added one line to the section, with a link to USA Today . LynnSin got a mention in the article for her CT comments on the recent airline terror plot.Crockspot 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make that two lines. Crockspot 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing unusual comments

message: I have been told that DU user Mr. Benchley was responsible for writing the Bob Bouderlang column. Benchley was banned a few days ago, so that column may now be defunct. I guess we'll see tomorrow, as the column is posted on Fridays. Crockspot 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a source that confirms that Benchley wrote the Bourderlang column.  That was proably 2 years ago, so it may take me a bit to find it, assuming its still available.  I find this bit of news interesting, as thats two long time prolific posters (ben & Benchly) who've been banned within the last 30 days. Dman727 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Columns

message: It is not okay to derive data that is not published.  Simplified example: If DU publishes that they have 1 inactive account and 1 active account but they have  no published data on Total Accounts, it is not okay to derive total accounts from what they published (adding inactive to acitve).  Simply say what they publish.  Wikipedia is not in a position to verify either the math or the method needed to derive anything.  It is explicitly against No Original Research to do this.  Put in the sourcable data.  Don't synthesize.  DU can be used as a reference for all data they publish but if they don't explicitly claim it, it can't be deduced.  --Tbeatty 06:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the DU home page before reverting based upon the comment?  The count that you reverted was not synthesized. It was "derived" by reading the exact number.  It was lifted directly off the page. Surely copy and pasting is not counted as synthesizing.  Why so much splitting of hairs over such a non controversial subject? Dman727 06:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's actually not true. Adding two numbers that appear on the same webpage (or in the same book) is totally acceptable. It's numbers that come from separate sources (two different pages, two different books) that can't be used. The style of a source should not affect the information retrievable from it, and adding one active member and one inactive member to get two members total is not only acceptable, it's common sense. - CheNuevara 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deriving Data

message: I added this:
Although the TOS that all members agree to clearly states that Democratic Underground is for meant for 'Democrats and other progressives' who are 'supportive of progressive ideals' conservatives and libertarians routinely complain of censorship when they are banned.
NBGPWS 07:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added info on TOS to criticisms

message: Info is here but not really relevant to article so I would leave it as a reference but not name him.  --Tbeatty 06:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why argue about it?  Skinner/Allen isn't under suspicion so I'd rather leave out his name than get in an edit war with Derex over the content.  I would think putting founder information is relevant.  Real name is probably irrelevant in this context.  --Tbeatty 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with your sentiment here. However, I'm not going to edit war. I stated the objection that this was unsourced. J fixed that. I have no reason to battle about it.  ...... However, looking more carefully, I think it's a matter of interpretation whether that proves Skinner's real name is David Allen; clearly some admin there has that name, but Skinner is simply the poster of an official message. I don't think that's strong enough to go on. While a reasonable inference, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of indisputable or sourceable fact. Derex 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've added more sources to the "Owners" section which prove without a doubt that "Skinner" is David Allen. Jinxmchue 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *It doesn't matter that he's not under suspicion. He's the one posting the message about the incident. I mean, House Speaker Dennis Hastert wasn't under suspicion of IM'ing lewd messages to underaged Senate pages, yet his name was used constantly in regards to the Foley scandal. Jinxmchue 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Jinxie, Dennis Hastert is merely under suspicion of sleeping with his male "assistant" lo these many years ;-)  BenBurch 04:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Benny, when you guys actually come up with proof of your "suspicions," let us know. You can do it at the same time your "big news" about CU finally materializes. Meanwhile, we'll continue to enjoy watching actual proof of the Democrats' misdeeds roll in. Jinxmchue 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yeah! And nothing is beyond suspicion at the "hive of scum and villainy" that is DU, anyway. Has Wikipedia ever been contacted by the Secret Service about any of our many banned lunatics here? (I've seen explicit presidential death threats). Quick, somebody go write a section about it here. Derex 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I know how you can find out :).  --Tbeatty 08:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now don't go tempting me, T. Derex 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skinner 

message: *Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum?  Right now, there really aren't any... Wickethewok 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading through the history, and there seems to be a lack of consensus on what independent sources are appropriate. (This is somewhat of an understatement.) This site was under temporary protection recently because of an edit war, and it kind of looks it is headed for another one. Gregarious Lonewolf 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I think that both DU and FR are so lacking in acceptable sources that both should be AfD-ed.  Not that either would get removed as we all know that a flash crowd would descend to defend either one.  BenBurch 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proably.  But I think that your prediction is true and the only result would be hard feelings for all involved. Dman727 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Sorry about that.  I was experimenting with the Lynx text-only browser from the command line.  The IP address is the same one I always post from, but I have no login cookie in Lynx (yet).  I hit the right arrow when I should have hit the down arrow.  So I fixed it right away from my regular browser where I already know what all the keys do.  Wikipedia seems to be not a great site when you use Lynx, BTW, which is a test of accessibility.  In particular, editing is very clunky, which I am not sure that anything can be done about.  BenBurch 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynx Browser problem

message: Stop reverting. Now. JBKramer 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Warriors 

message: # The link in question was initially added as a vanity link. (). 
# The link in question is a blog. 
# The link in question does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
# The link contains contains unverified original research.
# I would argue the site is designed to promote the helicoptor kites.
# The link does not provide a useful point of view beyond some indiviual responding to DU posts.
==== Analysis ====
For all of the above, I see no way this link is in harmony with our external links policy. The old arguement was that it was the only evidence of disagreement with DU. This is now covered by the wired story, also could be by the removed article by Tony Phyrillas . JBKramer 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Concur with your analysis.  BenBurch 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and it would be nice if the Wired article would be cited in the text as was pointed out by our IP editor colleague from Germany.  BenBurch 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence presented by JBKramer 

message: For all of the above, I see no way this link is in harmony with our external links policy. The old arguement was that it was the only evidence of disagreement with DU. This is now covered by the wired story, also could be by the removed article by Tony Phyrillas . JBKramer 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Concur with your analysis.  BenBurch 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and it would be nice if the Wired article would be cited in the text as was pointed out by our IP editor colleague from Germany.  BenBurch 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: # Violates WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided category 2 as it contains factually inaccurate AND unverified original research.
# Violates WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided category 7 Links to blogs
# Fails WP:EL#What_to_link as it is neither useful nor appropriately tasteful
# Violates WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
# Violates WP:NOT#SOAP
==== Analysis ====
This never should have been here, and should be removed now.  The consensus is for removal of the OTHER section, and all of the links therein.  BenBurch 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence presented by ([[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]]) 

message: This never should have been here, and should be removed now.  The consensus is for removal of the OTHER section, and all of the links therein.  BenBurch 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: # Just read WP:EL and it seems to violate much of the links to avoid part.
==== Analysis ====
I still don't think the whole OTHER section is proper for this article as it adds nothing encyclopedic to it 194.8.192.4 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence presented by (User:194.8.192.4) 

message: I still don't think the whole OTHER section is proper for this article as it adds nothing encyclopedic to it 194.8.192.4 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: Conservative Underground and DUmmie Funnies do not violate WP:EL because,
* Both have longevity
* These articles represent views contrary those held by members of DU without giving them undue weight
* They are relevant to the article on DU
These two links do not violate point #7 of Links to be avoided, because they are mandated by the subject of the WP article.
==== Comments ====
In my opinion, Ben and Jinx lack objectivity.  Both of them refuse to reach consensus and instead are pushing their own points of view.  
Note the full meaning of point #7 from Links normally to be avoided:  
Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.
It is pertinent to note that DU is itself a blog.  People like to talk, and people like to talk about talking.  In this sense, the Wikipedia article for DU should not exclude links to other blogs.   Also, the links to DUmmie Funnies and Conservative Underground help establish the notability of Democratic Underground.  
Liberal Underground and Neutral Underground, on the other hand, do not meet WP:EL or WP:WEB. Neither has the readerhip that Conservative Underground does.  According to Alexa, Conservative Underground often falls within the top 100,000 sites, while the other two do not. Conservative Underground has been around since 2002, and neither Liberal nor Neutral have been around that long.  Neither Liberal Underground nor Neutral Underground devote a section critical to DU, whereas Conservative Underground has such as section, and that is the purpose of the DUmmie Funnies blog.
Therefore in a genuine effort to reach consensus, I suggest a compromise. The links to Liberal Underground and Neutral Underground should be dropped, while the links to Dummie Funnies and Conservative Underground should be placed next to the article from Wired mag.
The section should read:
    * Democratic Underground homepage
          o DU Forums
          o Demopedia
          o Campaign Underground
    * John Kerry and the Lost Kos - Wired article mentions Democratic Underground.
    * Conservative Underground - Conservative message board with one section devoted to criticism of DU.
    * DUmmie FUnnies - Blog which criticizes DU and its forum activities.
::*Good argument.  I'll consider this.  BenBurch 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One question though, what does "Mandated" mean?  I took it as meaning that the article would have to be ABOUT such a site, or be unintelligible without such a link.  Do we have any record of original intent of the framers on this issue?  BenBurch 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have serious concerns - I do not believe blog mentions go to the notability of anything at all - and WP:WEB agrees with me. JBKramer 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just re-read WP:WEB and you appear to be correct on that.  BenBurch 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below. I will never concede to allow a link to an extremist hate site like CU. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with that and your below comments.greyleonard 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My concern centers mostly around the DUmmie FUnnies being included in the external links.  While this is a blog, there is no original research presented as the primary source of the material is the DU forums.  The articles cited as alternatives to DUFU may be relevant, but at least one is several years old.  DUFU is updated several times a week, and receives hundreds of replies and thousands of views on a regular basis.  It seems a main motive by some who wish have this link be deleted is to supress criticism of Democratic Underground, and this is not acceptable.--RWR8189 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review WP:RS - "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." Posts to a message board are not reliable sources. The only sources used by the blog are not reliable - thus, it publishes origional research. My main goal in having this link deleted is removing links to someguysblog. JBKramer 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  My first line is a quote from WP:OR. JBKramer 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence presented by the [[User:Gregarious_Lonewolf|gregarious lone wolf]]. 

message: In my opinion, Ben and Jinx lack objectivity.  Both of them refuse to reach consensus and instead are pushing their own points of view.  
Note the full meaning of point #7 from Links normally to be avoided:  
Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.
It is pertinent to note that DU is itself a blog.  People like to talk, and people like to talk about talking.  In this sense, the Wikipedia article for DU should not exclude links to other blogs.   Also, the links to DUmmie Funnies and Conservative Underground help establish the notability of Democratic Underground.  
Liberal Underground and Neutral Underground, on the other hand, do not meet WP:EL or WP:WEB. Neither has the readerhip that Conservative Underground does.  According to Alexa, Conservative Underground often falls within the top 100,000 sites, while the other two do not. Conservative Underground has been around since 2002, and neither Liberal nor Neutral have been around that long.  Neither Liberal Underground nor Neutral Underground devote a section critical to DU, whereas Conservative Underground has such as section, and that is the purpose of the DUmmie Funnies blog.
Therefore in a genuine effort to reach consensus, I suggest a compromise. The links to Liberal Underground and Neutral Underground should be dropped, while the links to Dummie Funnies and Conservative Underground should be placed next to the article from Wired mag.
The section should read:
    * Democratic Underground homepage
          o DU Forums
          o Demopedia
          o Campaign Underground
    * John Kerry and the Lost Kos - Wired article mentions Democratic Underground.
    * Conservative Underground - Conservative message board with one section devoted to criticism of DU.
    * DUmmie FUnnies - Blog which criticizes DU and its forum activities.
::*Good argument.  I'll consider this.  BenBurch 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One question though, what does "Mandated" mean?  I took it as meaning that the article would have to be ABOUT such a site, or be unintelligible without such a link.  Do we have any record of original intent of the framers on this issue?  BenBurch 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have serious concerns - I do not believe blog mentions go to the notability of anything at all - and WP:WEB agrees with me. JBKramer 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just re-read WP:WEB and you appear to be correct on that.  BenBurch 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below. I will never concede to allow a link to an extremist hate site like CU. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with that and your below comments.greyleonard 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My concern centers mostly around the DUmmie FUnnies being included in the external links.  While this is a blog, there is no original research presented as the primary source of the material is the DU forums.  The articles cited as alternatives to DUFU may be relevant, but at least one is several years old.  DUFU is updated several times a week, and receives hundreds of replies and thousands of views on a regular basis.  It seems a main motive by some who wish have this link be deleted is to supress criticism of Democratic Underground, and this is not acceptable.--RWR8189 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review WP:RS - "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." Posts to a message board are not reliable sources. The only sources used by the blog are not reliable - thus, it publishes origional research. My main goal in having this link deleted is removing links to someguysblog. JBKramer 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  My first line is a quote from WP:OR. JBKramer 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Okay, everyone, please take a step and take a deep breath. Really -- everybody. Also, please everyone take a moment to remember that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF are all official policy. Seriously. Following policy is not optional, even if you're involved in a dispute, even if you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right (which, by the way, you should never be). Policy is policy.
It's pretty evident that this issue needs some more discussion. However -- no disrespect to any of the involved parties intended -- this does not appear to be a discussion. A discussion implies dialogue or multilogue; what we have here is intercut monologues pitted against each other. Opinions do not a discussion make.
This doesn't need to happen. This can be discussed rationally, reasonably, and maturely. But that's not what's going on here, and that's not what will be going on if this continues.
With the support of those involved here, I would to become involved in mediating this discussion. I did it before, and I think I rather clearly demonstrated my commitment both to this article and to fairness. This article needs 1) a stop to the edit warring, 2) a return to civil and reasonable discussion, and 3) a proper solution to the issue at hand. I would like to take on the task of mediating and moderating this effort.
I don't see any other way this can come to a reasonable conclusion within a reasonable amount of time than organized mediator. If anyone else has any other ideas, let me know, but I'm skeptical.
But I don't want to waste my time. If you're willing to have me on as a mediator, please indicate this below. Because without a commitment to work civilly and reasonably from the involved parties, my time would be better spent elsewhere.
I look forward to your responses. - Che Nuevara 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested your intervention and would support you as either arbiter(final decision authority) or mediator(with authority over process). JBKramer 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course I accept that.  Either as mediator or arbiter.  BenBurch 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I accept your mediation or arbitration, but note that I strongly believe that WP takes precedence over Admin opinion which may run counter to that WP. - Thanks for your offer. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, FAAFA. But for the record, I'm not an administrator. In any case, I want to build consensus, not implement my own vision. Re below, I have to request that you hold off until we have everyone on board -- it's just easier that way. And since I'm not an admin, I couldn't delete it from the article if I wanted to, so it's a moot point. - Che Nuevara 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would accept your mediation, from my encounters with you on WP you have always seemed to be very fair minded.--RWR8189 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless the remaining parties consent to this, I will file an RFM tommorow. JBKramer 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I am skeptical about the outcome of this proposal and think that it is completely unnecessary (since an agreement about these links had been reached months ago), I'm willing to give it a chance. Jinxmchue 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, does this mean you are unwilling to consider any solution but your preferred solution? JBKramer 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I said I'm willing to give it a chance. However, I am skeptical because of what history has shown. I will abide by whatever solution/agreement is reached, but I don't expect it to last any longer than the previous solution/agreement did if one or more of the links in question are retained. Jinxmchue 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links "discussion" 

message: Comment; There is no way that a link to Conservative Underground, a site that was AfD'd from Wiki for being entirely non-notable, and a site that other sites have documented to be what many consider an 'extremist hate site' should be included, or even need be discussed. Some examples.
* "Sticky: CU Admin admires abortion clinic bombers, Eric Rudolph, David Koresh and Tim McVeigh" 
* "Sticky: Rosa Parks is "Low class bitch" - CU Admin"
* "Sticky: Gator (CU Admin): Sirhan Sirhan performed a great service for America"
Documentation of CU 'hate speech and extremism' - F.A.A.F.A. 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not believe this article meets the standard that we should have for notability. If you nominate it for deletion, I will support such. JBKramer 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean DU? If so, I currently don't have any intention of arguing that it's not notable. This is mostly due to the fact that I believe it is somewhat notable, but also because of the trouble that would result if it were nominated. Seriously, if you think this links issue was a problem, you probably cannot fathom the caca-storm and AfD nom would trigger. Jinxmchue 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am aware that some editors defend non-notable articles for reasons that they consider far more important than the encyclopedic value of those articles, much in they way other editors defend non-notable links for reasons they consider far more important than the encyclopedic value of those links. Perhaps we have reached consensus to remove the link, now? Are you prepared to be the bigger man? JBKramer 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: on CU

message: * Obviously this cannot get resolved while I'm here, so I'm going to stay out of it.  However, I believe I have made a compelling case that all of the links in the OTHER section have no place in this Wikipedia article, nor do similar links have a place in ANY Wikipedia article.  That isn't because I say so, it is because of Wikipedia policy.  Policy that ought to guide editors rather than their personal emotional prejudices.  If you are honest with yourselves and others, you will agree to that.  Now, you can do whatever you want, but if you do not respect these rules, you already know what you are.  BenBurch 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand.  Thank you for defending me.  I did not mean to cause you problems. 194.8.192.4 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the structured manner in which the discussion is to take place will allow you to participate. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My final word on this matter

message: As per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, I have removed the comment that was originally here. The diff can be seen here. - Che Nuevara 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot meets kettle. So are you stating people that have made personal attacks, and admiting to violating Wikipedia policy should not be afforded the same respect as others? Or are you saying AGF no longer applies after a certain point? Its important we discuss the topic and not eachother, and its also important that instead of attacking the editors you simply state your case and leave DU/CU drama where it belongs. Everyone has hsitory including myself here at Wikipedia, so unless you want people to drudge up your comments, you may want to cease drudging up others comments. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And from the information I found and posted on my talk page, it eliminates the assumption of Good Faith regarding yourself as well (according to your own reasoning). Pot meeting kettle big time. Jinxmchue 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. If all of you would stop editing the talk page and the article, the rest of us could work something out. JBKramer 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important to note what was posted to PAIN 

message: I step away from the computer for a couple days and Im shocked at what a mess this turned into.  What a shame. This whole thing seems to be a very fine example of WP:POINT.
Lets review.  A new, anoymous user from Amsterdame adds disparging remarks to a rival website and blanks links to websites critical of Democratic Underground.  I (perhaps wrongly), called this new anonymous user a vandal.  The results? A normal, rational response to in approproriate behavior (either mine or the anon?).  Nope!.. This is what we get []
Ben, starting up a massive revert storm is not the answer. But I see that now you have ducked out of the debate, now that it passions have inflamed.  
Btw, faafa asked me (and others) to state where I post.  Fair enough.  Im an avid poster at DU.  I've been there for a couple years.  I've also got an account at Freerepublic.  Its been there for a  couple of years to, although my post count is under 50 (I had an earlier account however I was banned early and quickly).  I don't have an account at any of the other links, although I have visted twice or threes times in the last year.
Finally. If are going to reopen this can of worms, err consensus, on the links.  Then we should open it on ALL the links that were discussed in the original consensus.  The consensus reached last summer eliminated a number of links.   A proper way to do this is to review them all, not just the "winners" from the last round.  Otherwise, politic warriors will just keep opening this can of worms every 6 months until they get their way. Dman727 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of links were deleted as clear violations of WP:POINT, which Ben (the person who posted them) so much as admitted, with unanimous or near-unanimous support for removal. There's no reason to revisit those discussions. - Che Nuevara 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres no need to revisit these either.  Even the instigator of this mess (Ben) has choosen to not take part.  Dman727 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Ben isn't the instigator. The anonymous user with the IP addy in Amsterdam started it. This same user has inexplicably vanished now that Ben has bowed out. Jinxmchue 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still here though really dismayed at the shark tank I fell into.  And I have a life that happens when my Thinkpad is folded up and in my briefcase, too.  What is the problem with you people?  Seriously?  I saw something that I didn't think helped this article in any way and I took it out.  First I get called a vandal, and then it becomes a case for Interpol.  I think you all need to take up Skittles and lock the computer in the shed for a few months.  Maybe read a book?  The sort they print on dead trees, not a PDF.  194.8.192.4 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  Yet the mess continues.  Interesting. Dman727 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not every editor posts multiple times every day. I suggest and request that you AGF and quit casting aspersions on other editors. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (delete question/misread post).  Seems that Jinxmchue just made a statement of fact...in fact he did it after defending Ben.  Perhaps AGF on your part would be justified as well. Dman727 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow. WoW. Wow. =

message: I wrote neither of the bits that were formerly here.  What is going on here?  I was unprepared for this malicious crap when I started with this.  I am about quit of Wikipedia.  You people are loons.  194.8.192.4 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've NOT reconsidered 

message: The last paragraph has got to go.  It was obviously written by a hater of Democratic Underground, and they didn't even spell activities right.  It's all POV. Captkangaroo 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure when that appeared, but it does at the very least need re-working to not be POV.  I'll take that as a to-do item when and if un-protection happens. BenBurch 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that startted when Jinx added a whole section of the supenoa from the Secret Service, but had to delete most of it because it was OR. Some remained. see - F.A.A.F.A. 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've no objection to removing that para.  While there is just a kernal of truth in it, its so far POV that it needs to be scrapped altogether, or totally reworded to be NPOV.Dman727 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I clarified what the tote was for and removed the opinion I inferred from reading your words.  BenBurch 17:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: (Refactored for readability) BenBurch 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Castagana is a matter entirely separate from the links dispute. Go ahead and be bold and add the information if you can find reliable sources for it. If you'd like to discuss it, go ahead and do so in another header section, but try not to make a big deal out of it if no big deal need be made. - Che Nuevara 06:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem. The FR article's claims about FR's involvement in the Killian Docs has few if any WP RS V sources. It relies mostly upon 'accepted but not documented truth', blogs, and links to the FR posts themselves. I don't want to start an edit war there, over that issue, so I thought it might be better to discuss these similar issues all together. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well give us sources that either claim or show that DU was involved in the Castagana incident and we can try to evaluate them. If there's no evidence to show, but some people have claimed, we can indeed say "X Person claims" or whatever. - Che Nuevara 16:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the most notable one at the moment. "Earlier today, users at the liberal websites Democratic Underground and Daily Kos brought to light the similarities between Castagana's Internet footprint and Costanzo's writings at Free Republic, and RAW STORY has found a series of eyebrow-raising connections between the two men." Co-authored by Larisa Alexandrovna - Deemed RS Raw Story  PLUS 414 Ghits "chad Castagana" "democratic underground" Ghits - F.A.A.F.A. 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks just fine to me. I don't see how it would be objectionable as long as you limit yourself to what is actually in the source(s). - Che Nuevara 02:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this will stop anybody from objecting, of course. --BenBurch 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's stopping you from assuming good faith? - Che Nuevara 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I do.  On the part of many, at least.  But I have seen it happen far too often that in political topics, it does not matter how well sourced, compliant with the rules, policies, and guidelines an entry is, if it runs counter to the accepted political dogma of one faction or another, it will be objected to, reverted by multiple editors, and eventually given up upon as a lost cause by those who know full well that the entry was perfectly fine. I don't think this can be fixed at all as politics is about bias.  I wonder sometimes if we should not have political bifurcation of some touchy subjects;  Democratic Undergorund (Liberal Version) and Democratic Underground (Conservative Version) which would be instructive as they would be as different as night and day. --BenBurch 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castanaga Outing

message: A third opinion was requested regarding the inclusion of a link to the blog. As long as the blog isnt being used as a source or reference for information, but simply in the External links, then it is a question of the worthiness of the link. There are very few external links, so I support keeping the link, KazakhPol 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: For responses only
(What is the link to this RFC's entry? You can delete this question when you've added it.  Thanks!!!) BenBurch 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page of an article is its RfC entry. The RfC page contains only a link and a brief summary, which JBKramer supplied as this: Which of the disputed external links (with special attention to the blog Dummie Funnies) should be included/excluded? - Che Nuevara 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!--BenBurch 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Without my input or comment AT ALL, WP:EL has just become substantially more strict.
Old wording:
"Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked. For example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked even if it contains factually inaccurate material... Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself."
New wording:
"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid...Links to blogs, except those written by a recognized authority."
This removes the last argument of the pro-linkers. Protection should be removed to implement the new guideline. JBKramer 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Out it goes.  This overrides all previous talk of consensus and the RFC.  A totally different rule set.  Please ask for unprotection to we can make the edits. We might have to change some other things too.  BenBurch 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did the request for unprotection myself. --BenBurch 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as WP:EL stays this way there isn't much of an argument for including these links.  If there are any substantial changes to WP:EL, I will revisit the issue at that time.--RWR8189 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess things work out eventually after all :) - Che Nuevara 20:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually.  I should be more of an optimist. --BenBurch 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EL changed 

message: Should I now archive all of this discussion?  BenBurch 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the OTHER section in accord with what was decided above