Talk:Democratic Underground/Archive 2

message: While I agree that the recent Wikivandalism by a few DU members isn't something worthy of mention in the article, I do think it's probably worth noting here the thread where they discuss their exploits:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2994204#2994296
Atlant 00:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to note that, then this page should also note that other people on DU chastised the handful who were at fault.  DU also locked the thread, presumably to discourage further such antics. JamesMLane 04:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with James. This entire passage is just a big self-reference. It's too minor of an incident to include in the article - just a single (locked) thread. It's also quite POV - "they decided to begin an assault" makes it sound as if the entire membership of DU suddenly planned and executed a giant vandalism spree. Neutralitytalk 05:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Here's the subsequent thread where additional folks disavow the Wikivandalism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2996375
Atlant 23:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikivandals 

message: The democraticunderground is neither liberal nor progressive because it bans and censors all differing opinions which is not liberal or progressive, this page is very one sided and biased towards the democraticunderground and not neutral at all
:The way I see it, they can ban anyone they want. It's a private site. It's not Wikipedia's job to claim that a site can't possibly be liberal if it bans people who hold certain opinions. I also think that phrases such as "censorship" and "free speech" are pointless when speaking about a private web site. You don't have a God-given right to post to DU.
:The opinions held by most DU posters are best described as liberal/progressive, so our description should stay. Feel free to increase the emphasis on DU's banning policy, just be sure to read up on WP:NPOV. Rhobite 06:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
::100% agreed to the first paragraph of Rhobite's post.  Furthermore, this article is not the place to argue the definition of "liberal".  this one is. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, that's just not accurate.  For the record, I am best described as a moderate with strong libertarian tendencies and strong right-winger antipathy.  I used to post there quite a bit (~500 edits), a year ago, and was generally quite well received.  Yes, a few folks (e.g. Eloriel) turned their flamethrowers on me, but overall people were respectful, because I was respectful.  Certainly, right-wing posters quickly get tombstoned.  I'm sure there are some cases of moderates tombstoned.  However, I think it is a considerable exaggeration to say that only "far-left extremism" is allowed. Derex 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, bull.  The record for banning on DU that I'm aware of is zero posts, banned because of his username.  Know what the name was?  "ModerateMadMan."  They're not interested in allowing moderates to post.  I myself was banned for stating that there was absolutely no evidence that the administration orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001.  They considered it defense of/support for the President.  Think about that.  Refusing to subscribe to conspiracy theories involving the President of the United States intentionally murdering thousands of his own citizens is grounds for banning there.  It is not exaggeration in the least.  Rogue 9 02:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Remove the Words Liberal and Progressive From This Page 

message: I added him to the list of well-known participants.  He made this post to DU.  It's confirmed as genuine by this post to his blog. JamesMLane 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: John Conyers

message: This article is somewhat vague in its description of the actual content of the site.  While I recognize the need for NPOV, I think this article could go much farther in its description of the site.  A mission statement, for example -- the article says DU was started the day GW took office, but it doesn't say why (which is a matter of record publicly visible on the site).  So long as editors quote, paraphrase, or summarize what -actually appears on the site-, its factual basis cannot be challenged because the text itself is clearly accessible.  So, for example, saying that the site was founded "to protest George Bush's election to the presidency, which is characterized therein as 'illegitimate'" is perfectly in keeping with the NPOV requirements because such text occurs unequivocably on the site here.  With that in mind, I think some more information (not to be confused with commentary) ought to be included in this article. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague 

message: While not directly about this article, it seems like DU's Demopedia site might be in violation of GFDL by not stating that most of their Wikipedia forked articles that they host are licensed under the GFDL. —Tokek 09:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a GDFL note on their disclaimer page. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible non-compliance with GFDL 

message: I would like to know why a manipulating polls section is on the free republic but not on this page, and why someone keeps taking it off, if your going to take the manipulating polls section then you should take it off the free republic page
:It wasn't removed, it was moved.  If you look at the edit by which I removed it, you'll see that, as per Wikipedia custom, I explained the reasoning in the edit summary. JamesMLane 20:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The FR article is organized differently.  DU has multiple significant components besides the forums, so that's how this article is organized.  It woudn't make sense to set up one forum aspect as being parallel with the columns, Demopedia, etc.  Also, only a small minority of posts are calls to "DU this poll".  I don't see any need to break it out, but, to try to accommodate you, I'll make it a subhead within the "Forums" section. JamesMLane t c 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Wikipedia articles are organized differently.  But I think both sites offer about the same amount of diverse compenents that appeal to their respective audiences.  It's a sub-head in the FR article now so I think it's a fair comparison.  They both seem to have about the same amount of "Freep/DU this poll" with about the same effect. Tbeatty 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should it remain?  I removed the same criticism that was leveled on Free Republic.  There is no evidence that it happens.  There is nothing wrong with it if it did happen and most polls protect against it if they can.  It is simply enough to say they are non-scientific polls and DU attempts to manipulate them.  Is it somehow okay to vote "en masse" with the same intent as multiple voting?  The ultimate goal is to unduly influence the poll and that aspect was covered.  Tbeatty 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manipulating Polls

message: As others have noted, the intro describes the DU as a "liberal/progressive" online community, but also correctly states participation is limited on the basis of ideology (within certain limits) - calling into question the accuracy of those labels, which are typically supportive of broad intellectual freedom and individual rights.  Can we consider this formulation for the introduction, which sticks to the objective facts and avoids a POV debate about this issue?:
Democratic Underground, or "DU", describes itself as
"an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."  It was established on January 20, 2001, the day President George W. Bush was inaugurated.
i.e., on the basis of its rules, the DU is more of a "community of liberal/progressives" than a "liberal/progressive community," if you see what I'm saying.  But even if you disagree with my point of view, isn't it more neutral POV to delete the disputed adjectives and state what DU objectively is, (1) an online community that (2) defines itself in the following way? Kaisershatner 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction, Liberal, Progressive

message: Okay put your ducats where your mouth is.
Name, in a nice simple list that we can all evaluate, the "unethical" treatment you want documented in the article.
Atlant 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: already listed, distraction-meister. last missive from me to you until you display some manners and reading comprehension. you're not really up to the task, are you? it shows and that's what really has your 'testines in a twist. -st just  21:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's enough. This stops right now or I start issuing time outs in the form of blocks. Gamaliel 21:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name the "unethical" treatment 

message: i'm on it, gamaliel. criticisms from notable sources, eh? but ,what am i, chopped liver? okay, okay, i think i know what you're looking for. you don't want testimony from those who've been wronged personally and directly by du owner, david allen and his business associates, which this thread already provides plenty of. you want a name. a known name, perhaps a professional debunker of cult and cult-styled websites who will observe du for a few months and report back? like that? i'm sure that can be arranged. what's my budget? -st just  21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we start off with you simply providing us with what sources you have now?  Gamaliel 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your long list of names is Original Research and violates WP policy and doesn't belong in the Article.  Nor is it referenceable work in the article.  I wouldn't have reverted it on the talk page but I can see why.--Tbeatty 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's not original research then show me how I can verify it.  Where is it published?  By who is it publised?  Who fact checked it, etc, etc,?  These are all requirements for sources.  I am not sure that even then it would be relevant. --Tbeatty 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I don't see how one person will qualify as a source under encyclopedic guidelines.  I also don't see how you will avoid the Original Research tag even when your source comes forward.  I am afraid you will need to have your conclusions published by an organization that meets Wikipedia standards for sources.  As for the "secret code" for usernames, I thought users picked their own usernames?  Is that not correct?  I also don't see what would be controversial about "DLC-style democrats."  With the Clintons being te defacto leaders of the left, DLC Democrats would befairly mainstream.  As for Will Pitt, I believe, within DU, he is both loved and hated depending on where you stand.  I don't participate in DU but I have read many posts.  --Tbeatty 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: === David L. Wolper ===  	 
			
I hope I'm commenting in the proper spot, but you guys should add filmmaker David L. Wolper to the list of notable DUers. His screen name is dwolper (if he hasn't been banned yet for being too clearheaded, the moonbats users don't even realize who he is, and attack him whenever he posts, because he is a moderate Dem. They think he is a "freeper troll".) Anyway, he is probably the MOST notable DUer in existence, if you go by accomplishments. And on that note, I have to object to Will Pitt being listed as a notable. He's a nobody. Crockspot 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moonbats"? Pretty immature here. I deleted this talk section the other day because it functioned solely as a troll attack, IMO (and we know that this user has long had an axe to grind with the DU website and it's users, since he can't post there. Can we have some constructive criticism here without the childlike name-calling? If you want to get into flamewars with DU users (which is obviously what you seem to live for), please take it somewhere else besides Wikipedia. This isn't a beer hall brawl. The internet is a very big place, with lots of websites and message boards for this type of thing. Or better yet, I suggest you take a walk outside and breath some fresh air. It might relax you a little. I'm all for keeping the discussion civil. --Fightingirish 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have taken your comment to heart, and adjusted my comment. I posted that some time back, before I was registered here, and recently signed it with my registered username. The edit summary should reflect that. I would suggest you take a look at my edit history before you pass judgement on my value as a Wiki editor. Yes, I am a conservative, but I have made more than a couple of positive contributions to Wikipedia beyond arguing with users such as User:BenBurch. In fact, I would stack my edit history against his any day of the week. And FYI, I can post on DU, just not under this username, and not expressing a conservative POV. I will copy this reply to your talk page. Crockspot 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We have an article about William Rivers Pitt, and an attempt to delete it on grounds of alleged non-notabiity failed (see AfD discussion here). On that basis, he should be listed in this article. As for Wolper, he's certainly notable (though his current Wikipedia article is a truly miserable stub). The DU user profile for "DWolper" is consistent with its being the same person. Can you provide a reference confirming that it's the same?  Wikipedia has a User:Hilary Duff that most of us think is not the real Hilary Duff (as an example). JamesMLane t c 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no verifiable sources, but I have spoken with several people online who communicated with the dwolper user via private message, and they were sure it was him. He has never announced that he is David L. Wolper on Democratic Underground, so it is unlikely that he is a poser. But I see that he is now listed, so perhaps someone else was able to verify. Crockspot 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comment above. The precise question of Pitt's notability has been considered by this community.  Some agreed with you, but more than twice as many people deemed him notable.  Therefore, the wikilink should stay.  Incidentally, even aside from Pitt's case, your proposed "rule of Wikipedia" would encounter opposition from many Wikipedians, including me.  As our axiom has it, Wikipedia is not paper.  We have almost ten times as many articles as Britannica because our format enables us to provide information on many, many more subjects than a conventional encylopedia. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable DU members

message: I hope I'm commenting in the proper spot, but you guys should add filmmaker David L. Wolper to the list of notable DUers. His screen name is dwolper (if he hasn't been banned yet for being too clearheaded, the moonbats users don't even realize who he is, and attack him whenever he posts, because he is a moderate Dem. They think he is a "freeper troll".) Anyway, he is probably the MOST notable DUer in existence, if you go by accomplishments. And on that note, I have to object to Will Pitt being listed as a notable. He's a nobody. Crockspot 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moonbats"? Pretty immature here. I deleted this talk section the other day because it functioned solely as a troll attack, IMO (and we know that this user has long had an axe to grind with the DU website and it's users, since he can't post there. Can we have some constructive criticism here without the childlike name-calling? If you want to get into flamewars with DU users (which is obviously what you seem to live for), please take it somewhere else besides Wikipedia. This isn't a beer hall brawl. The internet is a very big place, with lots of websites and message boards for this type of thing. Or better yet, I suggest you take a walk outside and breath some fresh air. It might relax you a little. I'm all for keeping the discussion civil. --Fightingirish 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have taken your comment to heart, and adjusted my comment. I posted that some time back, before I was registered here, and recently signed it with my registered username. The edit summary should reflect that. I would suggest you take a look at my edit history before you pass judgement on my value as a Wiki editor. Yes, I am a conservative, but I have made more than a couple of positive contributions to Wikipedia beyond arguing with users such as User:BenBurch. In fact, I would stack my edit history against his any day of the week. And FYI, I can post on DU, just not under this username, and not expressing a conservative POV. I will copy this reply to your talk page. Crockspot 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David L. Wolper 

message: :We have an article about William Rivers Pitt, and an attempt to delete it on grounds of alleged non-notabiity failed (see AfD discussion here). On that basis, he should be listed in this article. As for Wolper, he's certainly notable (though his current Wikipedia article is a truly miserable stub). The DU user profile for "DWolper" is consistent with its being the same person. Can you provide a reference confirming that it's the same?  Wikipedia has a User:Hilary Duff that most of us think is not the real Hilary Duff (as an example). JamesMLane t c 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no verifiable sources, but I have spoken with several people online who communicated with the dwolper user via private message, and they were sure it was him. He has never announced that he is David L. Wolper on Democratic Underground, so it is unlikely that he is a poser. But I see that he is now listed, so perhaps someone else was able to verify. Crockspot 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comment above. The precise question of Pitt's notability has been considered by this community.  Some agreed with you, but more than twice as many people deemed him notable.  Therefore, the wikilink should stay.  Incidentally, even aside from Pitt's case, your proposed "rule of Wikipedia" would encounter opposition from many Wikipedians, including me.  As our axiom has it, Wikipedia is not paper.  We have almost ten times as many articles as Britannica because our format enables us to provide information on many, many more subjects than a conventional encylopedia. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Pitt 

message: A recent anonymous editor added Snivi Yllom/Molly Ivins as a notable member. Does anyone have any proof that Snivi Yllom is Molly Ivins (such as a claim by member Snivi)?
Atlant 18:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snivi Yllom 

message: I requested that this page be semi-protected because of our repeated anon vandal.--RWR8189 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for semi-protection 

message: ===Democratic Underground===
Delete since Democratic Underground is amusing itself by requesting that the entry for Progressive Indpendent be deleted.  Already DU prevents mention of competing forums on their site.  Are we going to tolerate their facism at Wiki also? Zoraida 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete  

message: Delete since Democratic Underground is amusing itself by requesting that the entry for Progressive Indpendent be deleted.  Already DU prevents mention of competing forums on their site.  Are we going to tolerate their facism at Wiki also? Zoraida 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Democratic Underground]]

message: I added Larry C. Johnson to the list of notable participants.  The confirmation is in this DU post and on a different website; I think it's solid enough to go with. JamesMLane t c 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry C. Johnson 

message: This as devolved into an edit war and we even now have sock puppets editting the link out (they are probably DU members here at the request of another DU member in order to circumvent the three-reverts rule). Request submitted on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jinxmchue 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it wasn't exactly denied, but it wasn't fulfilled, either. Jinxmchue 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't see any other way to read what the admin put there.  BenBurch 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why not try just reading what it says instead of trying to infer a greater meaning to it? Jinxmchue 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested that article be protected from further edits until dispute over DUmmie FUnnies link resolved

message: The blog in question gets no more than 5 or 6 replies daily.  Most personal blogs get more replies than that.  The only justification I've seen for its inclusion is that it is referenced on the Free REpublic forum and the threads it is referenced in get a lot of replies.  That's the most disingenuous and fallacious argument I've ever seen on wiki.  Every site or blog that deserves inclusion much reach the standards ITSELF.  You do not reference the Free Republic threads discussing it in order to reference it.  It would simply make more sense to link to the FR in some way that provides criticism.
This blog is incredibly small.  It's not worthy of inclusion by any sensible standards.  It's cut.  You can't justify it by simply whining about supposed "censorship".  Find another blog that criticizes DU and has a popular readership.  Try Malkin.  It doesn't have to focus exclusively on DU.  This blog, regardless, does not make the cut.  5 replies on average?  Give me a break.--69.249.195.232 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Who died and made you king? This is a meaingless exercise on your part, Ben, and it's not how Wiki works. That's a good thing, since you yourself should know how easy it is to drum up sock puppet votes. Besides, in disputes like this, it's the moderators who get to decide these things. Jinxmchue 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polling is a perfectly acceptable Wiki means of achieving consensus.  If you have a huge issue with it, go post on the administrator's notice board and get an admin in here.  Also, YOU seem to be the only one posting on message boards to acquire meatpuppets at this point in time, Jinxie.  And I set the rules to keep IP posters and those who register just for this vote out of the count just so meats and socks won't be involved.  However, if consensus is that there is no means of achieving consensus, I'll just stop reverting the link when it inevitably gets removed, and leave that for you to do on a painfully regular basis.  BenBurch 15:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *But polling is not an acceptable means as to determining what does and does not belong on Wiki. This should be painfully obvious to you due to your failed attempts to troll for votes on DU. If there is a conflict, a discussion is begun with both sides giving their arguments as to whether or not the material meets Wiki guidelines. As you've obviously failed to defend your position that DUFU does not belong in the external links, you've moved on to this silly exercise. I mean, seriously. How hard is it to get people to sign up, make 100 edits - however minor - and then come here and vote? As to your absurd accusation that I am acquiring sock puppets, prove it. Go to CU and search for my posts about Wiki. Show me where I have said anything there about people coming here to help me. You can't because it's not true. Even the evidence of the editting of the DU entry proves this, as the problem there is anonymous sock puppets editting out the DUFU link. I will refrain from saying what's on my mind now, since I still honor the agreement I made about following WP:CIVIL. Jinxmchue 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then please go ask an admin to check in here.  If you LIKE I can make this a FORMAL poll as that mechanism exists.  But Wiki editorial issues are decided by informal straw polls all the time, Jinxie. We both are here and we need to learn to live together.  BenBurch 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ha!  "Several people" = mostly nameless sock puppets from DU. Jinxmchue 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Du Funnies