Talk:Free Republic/Archive 4

message: Thank you for your comments, although I would have preferred to have your comments " devoid of personal comments about other editors' motivations, POVs or the like." Nonetheless, I think that I have just enough information to try and lend a hand.
Some issues you may want to consider:
# This article relies almost solely on what we call "self-published" sources. Self published sources are permissible under certain conditions (See WP:ATT#Questionable_or_self-published_sources)
# A Wikipedia article cannot be based solely on self-published sources. If this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia (See WP:WEB), surely there should be a substantial number of secondary sources that describe the website, the people behind it, their views, etc. If such secondary sources are not available, then the article needs to be reduced in size to include just basic information from the self-published source (in this case the website "About us" or similar web pages.)
# In Wikipedia we describe all significant viewpoints about a subject, so that the article can achieve a WP:NPOV status. We do that by finding secondary sources that describe these significant viewpoints, as well as describing the viewpoints expressed by the subject of the article (again, under the conditions set by the use of self-published sources.) This include, of course, any criticism, provided that such criticism is attributed to a reliable source and not asserted as a fact.
I would also want to dispel any misunderstandings about consensus. Consensus is not 5 to 3 or even 5 to 1 as I have seen people describing it in edit summaries and in this page. Consensus is the way that Wikipedia works: we building consensus through polite discussion and negotiation, with the caveat that editor's consensus cannot trump Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (or any other policy).
From reading the discussions in this page, one could assume that there are editors that may be associated with the website itself. If that is the case, a warning may be needed: you may be in a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI). A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.
Other editors may be "too close to the subject" (e.g. notable critics), and although this does not mean they are incapable of being neutral, they need to be aware that it may incline them in that direction. 
As for the accusations of sockpuppetry, please note that it is remarkably simple to find out if there is such abuse (See WP:RFCU), and although using sockpuppets may be useful in some situations, using that as a subterfuge to bypass the three revert rule, is considered disruptive and may be basis from removing your editing privileges.
Hope the above is useful information.
Having said all of that, a first step for involved editors would be to agree on some basic ground rules:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back.
In my experience, if such ground rules are not accepted, editing articles about which there is controversy and strong POVs, is not only very unpleasant, but seldom achieves anything (besides stress and anger, that is).
Once editors agree to these ground rules, we could proceed to do some research to find out what secondary sources say about this subject and clean up the article from poorly sourced material.
If there are any questions about the above, I will be happy to address them. 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: That notice properly links to the evidence page as required by the rules.  If you delete that sock puppet investigation notice again, I will see to it that you are blocked.  I have followed all of the forms of this process.  You do the same. --BenBurch 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring it on with your sock puppet investigation. I want all of the results published right here. And when it's proven that these five people are posting from five separate IP addresses, I will expect your apology. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I owe you no apology for anything.  I have already proven that you violated the rules already when you used an IP address to get around a 24 hour block.  You have no honor left here. --BenBurch 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already proven that you violated the rules already when you used an IP address to get around a 24 hour block. Really? There are over 70,000 people in Palatine and hundreds of thousands more who pass through. Since you're from Elgin, you're probably one of them. And that isn't my IP address. You have proven nothing except that there's another person in Palatine, Illinois who is interested in this dispute -- one who is an expert typesetter, and got involved in this dispute even before I did. Furthermore, as William M. Connolley observed, that IP address wasn't used to edit the main page of the article; so even if it was me, it wasn't used to evade the 24-hour block. You have exhibited an impressive level of skill in ignoring certain inconvenient facts and distorting others in pursuit of your false accusations, a signature trait of long-term members of the Internet left. This reminds me of the witch hunt against Karl Rove. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sock puppet accusation would be really funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 12ptHelvetica 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BrianFromPalatine Do not delete that notice again. 

message: I can't believe that RWR would remove these, but here they are again, with sources.
His 1999 views:
"the top extremist, in the estimate of the disenchanted, is its founder, Robinson, a wheelchair-bound Navy veteran of the Vietnam War who operates the site with his son and an unpaid helper from his home in Fresno, Calif. When Robinson unleashed a windy jeremiad linking Texas Gov. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father, a former CIA director (1975-77), vice president (1981-89) and president of the United States (1989-93), all cyber-hell broke loose. 
Meanwhile, Robinson says he'll continue to make his own points about the Bush-CIA past.
"The theories of the CIA's involvement with drug runners and terrorists in Southeast Asia and Central and South America are well known and have been around for many years," he answered a query from Salon News. "And many of the stories we've heard are probably true or at least are grounded in fact and I, for one, would like to get to the bottom of it and put a stop to it."
SOURCE
Here's a 1999 post by Jim Robinson crticising George Bush:
:To: Freedom Wins
:So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?
:Well, by God, if you people insist on <U>electing another cokehead</U> as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!"
:And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from <U>cokeheads and felons! Elect another one</U> and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!
:Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm SOURCE]
His post 9/11 views: (his words)
"Lots of grumbling lately about deleted posts. Well, my friends, the
simple truth is the game has changed. We are now at war. We have
been attacked by a vicious cold-blooded force of international
terrorists who want to destroy our nation, our freedom and our way
of life. There is no doubt about this. Knowing this, I am alarmed
to read some of the stuff that has been posted to FR in the last
few days. This is not the time to raise doubts about our leaders.
This is not the time to raise conspiracy theories. This is not the
time to second guess our intelligence agencies. This is war. This
is survival of our way of life. We must unite behind our
Commander-in-chief and do all we possibly can to support him and
our war efforts. We do not have a choice in this matter. [...]" [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602045/posts?page=314 SOURCE]
:Thosewho are coming in here to post a bunch of propaganda to smear Bush or otherwise harm the war effort are going to be deleted.
:I guess you missed my posts where I said that I am 100% behind our President and the war. I don't care if it's Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, or the head of the John Birch Society himself. I do not want it on FR. And I do not want a bunch of 40 year old conspiracy crap. Not interested. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602045/posts?page=314 source]
CA 2003 "Bill and Hillary Clinton and their minions still wield a tremendous amount of power and influence over the Democrat Party, the socialist movement and the national press. Their goals are to completely eliminate our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, etc., and these are just for starters."
"I believe the overall goal of their movement is to completely do away with the U.S. Constitution and in its place, install socialist/totalitarian rule over America. Furthermore, I believe they wish to do away with our national sovereignty altogether and subject America to domination by the U.N. and other world bodies."
"Now you may call me a nutcase if you wish, but that's the way I see it....I believe that as long as Bill and Hillary Clinton and their like minded socialist minions have any influence or power over the government or either of the two major political parties, our nation and all of our freedoms are in extreme danger.
[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1004710/posts source]
Are these relevant? Do they reflect the views of FR? If Jim alleged in 1999 that Bush I and II were involved CIA drug running, does that make him a Conspiracy Theorist? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will re-post a point that I made two days ago: "Robinson's signed statements on his own website should be considered a reliable source concerning his own extremism -- and, by implication, the kind of extremism he's willing to tolerate on his website. He hangs himself with his own rope with these statements." -- BryanFromPalatine 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These may be used to present the owner's viewpoints, if these are representative, verifiable, and not cited out of context. As for the question about "Conspiracy Theorist", we need to leave that conclusion to the readers to make, or, if there is a reliable source, that describes him as such, we can cite that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I will simply stress what I have posted above:  Unless the viewpoints of the owner/founder of the organization can be explicitly tied to the organization itself, I don't think they are notable with regards to an article about the organization.  The only way I can see them being included under policy is in a section solely about the owner/founder himself. Lawyer2b 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel they both have to be considered. My understanding that Jim Rob's change from the 1999 'Bush-is-a Big Gov liberal and a CIA Drug Runner' Jim Rob to the Post 9/11 'Bush-is-the-messiah who must not be criticized' Jim Rob has been a source of many people leaving, new competing forums starting, and much disaffection. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in the past, Fairness, support your facts with some reliable sources and you will find me at your service to see them included. :-) Lawyer2b 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Google "Free Republic" + "Jim Robinson". Here's some harsh criticism from the right. Too bad it's not inclusionable. linky  One of the editors active here who just happens to be a Freeper just recently AfD'd an article on Liberty Post, one of the forums started by disaffected Freepers. Now it's gone. Too bad. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have the time for expanded responses right now, but unless you can find such quotes from verifiable and reliable sources, they have no place in this article, or really even this discussion.  Please be aware of WP:BLP.  And you seem to be unaware of the AfD process, I nominated LP for deletion along several other non-notable political discussion boards or blogs from all sides of the political spectrum in the time that I have been here that in no way satisfy WP:WEB, I did not delete them, consensus within the community demanded it.--RWR8189 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They're all sourced now. Did you actually think he didn't write those? Why didn't you 'Google' before you removed them? - F.A.A.F.A. 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why you would add what you believe to be controversial statements by a living person without sourcing them.  WP:BLP is a very important policy, thank you sourcing the remarks.--RWR8189 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not controversial for him. They're standard fare, and common knowledge. - F.A.A.F.A. 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. All I'm asking you to do is abide by WP:BLP, you were not doing that earlier, hopefully you will in the future.--RWR8189 11:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Robinson's views 

message: FR only banned castagana after he was arrested. Wrong. FR repeatedly banned Castagana. The last time they did it was indeed at the time he was arrested. He was posting on FR with a sig line that said name your poison ... In your neighborhood bar, that means, "What can I get you to drink, Sir? Your usual Jack and Coke?" By itself that remark means nothing. ... while mocking the people he himself had sent the terrorist threats to ... Mockery is a cornerstone of DU and Kos. ... and making light of people receiving death threats filled with what they thought was anthrax. Indefensible! Castagana's overall conduct is indeed indefensible. But did he reveal, in his FR posts, that he had sent the death threats? 
There is no proof or even any valid suspicion that the Chuy's info was posted by a DU Mole. Ask the Sysops and administrators at FR. Believe it or not, when you click on a link at DU that takes you to FR and you start posting, the FR Sysops can tell that you're from DU. It's a software thing, maybe you wouldn't understand. DU locked the threads on the tsunami conspiracy theories, and actively DIScourages such posts see not 'embraces' them ... But did they ban the members who posted tsunami theories? 
I will not add to this re-write until all editors agree that notable posts and actions which were covered by RS V secondary sources will be included to roughly the same extent that they are covered in other similar articles, like DU and Kos. Well, if you want to hold the editing process hostage to your demands, I don't think you're participating in the mediation process in good faith. But let's do this. The section containing Jim Robinson's controversial posts is 112 words long. The section containing the MSM criticism in the Globe and Mail is 118 words long. The section containing the LA Times lawsuit is 267 words long. Let's follow the 25% rule you suggested.
::::::::112 + 118 + 267 = 497
::::::::497 x 3 = 1,491
FAAFA, you need to write 1,491 words of nothing but sweetness and light about FR to match all of the criticism and controversy that we're already including. If you can write 1,581 words, we might squeeze in a 30-word sentence about the Chuy's incident, the death threat incident, and the fact that the people who posted that stuff were banned. 
One editor has repeatedly asserted that such criticism will be limited to 'one sentence'. I am not going to participate in an article that is designed to 'whitewash' Free Republic. And I'm not going to participate in an article that is designed as a hit piece against Free Republic -- which is exactly what this was until I showed up. If we can all agree to that, I'm amenable to moving the criticism out of the lead paragragh ... That isn't even negotiable. It is a precondition to anything else, since the Kos and DU articles never contained such negative press in their lead paragraphs. I'm removing the negative press from the lead right freaking now, along with your ridiculous Todd Brendan Fahey sourcing, and I never want to see it there again.  
Huh? What statements by Jim Robinson? ... Where are these 'statements by JimRob' you refer to? Somebody took them out. I've just put them back in. Robinson hangs himself with his own rope. He is the founder of the website and it reflects his personal views. His remarks belong in the article. Everyone agreed? Wrong! RW and L2B DON'T think that Jim Rob's views and comments belong in the article. RWR is a DU member with thousands of posts, just like you and BenBurch.  He shouldn't even be working on what Tex calls "C&C." Furthermore, RWR and L2b are outvoted by me, 12pt and Tex. And by you. After all, the person who first put Robinson's comments into this article was named FAAFA. I know I can count on your vote in consensus, since you've previously fought so hard to include them. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At DU I guess you could say I'm a deep mole.  I espouse the most conservative views possible without getting banned, its mostly for my own amusement.  I am also a member and donor in good standing of Free Republic, under the same handle as here.  Jim can hang by his own words if he wishes, but it is simply original research to call his postings controversial or extremist, you can't get around it.--RWR8189 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RWR, you're outvoted in committee, and overwhelmed out on the floor. We need to wrap this up. Jossi's stub indicates that the "major editing" process will be completed no later than December 20. That's about 24 hours. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol sorry, consensus cannot overrule an official policy.--RWR8189 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I withdraw from this 'mediation' until the admin regains control. Bryan, your claims, allegations and conduct, even in regards to a fellow conservative who features a picture of Ronald Reagan on his user page for Christ's sake, are beyond absurd. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Until the admin regains control"? FAAFA, Jossi has always had control and I've always participated within his guidelines. He has never expressed any feeling that he's lost control of the process. That's your opinion -- and by the way, wasn't Jossi's mediation your idea in the first place? RWR, even official policy is subject to interpretation, and some of Jim Robinson's comments are what any reasonable person would call controversial. -- BryanFromPalatine 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that I believe the comments to be controversial and a reasonable person might make that same inference. However, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia verifiability not truth.--RWR8189 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FAAFA, you were the original advocate in favor of including these remarks. Did you ever find a reliable source that described Robinson's remarks as "controversial"? Without them, the C&C section is only 385 words long -- and you'd only have to write 1,155 words of sweetness and light about FR to match them. -- BryanFromPalatine 05:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now we're getting somewhere

message: (UI) I'm officially withdrawing from the re-write and mediation. Write whatever you want. I'll edit it after. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please bear in mind what the mediator you selected, ≈ jossi ≈, had to say about such tactics: Lack of collaboration could mean ... [that] (b) By not participating they "reserve the right" to attack the article later when we are done with the editing. ... If they do not engage now, and engage later as per (b), we will all know how to deal with it. I've changed both the sandbox version and the "stub" version to satisfy the 12/20 deadline, removing the Robinson quotes that RWR finds objectionable. Kindest regards as always, and have a very Merry Christmas. -- BryanFromPalatine 11:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bryan, FAAFA may have withdrawn, but there are other editors involved, and he may come back. Please do not take unilateral decisions on the article as you have done with the stub and the Sandbox. ~~ Let's move forward as agreed by all of us.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawing from mediation and rewrite