Talk:Democratic Underground/Archive 3

message: Ben, or someone who admires his work, has removed the link to DU Funnies. 
Can a responsible Wikipedian please remedy this situation?
72.82.108.46 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sock puppets from DU. They were either drawn here by direct request by Ben or by his posts on DU. I've asked once that the entry be semi-protected, but the admin who answered the request said there wasn't enough activity to warrant it. I can't imagine what would constitute enough activity, though. Jinxmchue 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Would you care to show me where I have posted about this discussion on DU?  Or are you going to admit that was a lie just then by not providing that information?  BenBurch 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmmm...  I hear only crickets.  BenBurch 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, I'll get right on that when Skinner opens up DU's search feature to non-donors and stops banning "freepers." Jinxmchue 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In other words, you can't back up your slander? Tsk, Tsk. So Credible. BenBurch 04:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What slander, Ben? I know for a fact that you have posted about Wiki on DU within the last week, and have done so before. You obviously did this to draw other DUers here and probably hoped they'd stay.  Looks like some did, judging by all the sock puppets/trolls who are editting/vandalizing the DU page in favor of your argument against the DUFU link. Tell you what, Ben. Why don't you use your influence over there and get these idiots to stop disrupting Wiki? I'd love to see how that thread would play out. Jinxmchue 07:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You think I have any influence?  Your opinion of my status is higher than mine, it seems.  OK, though.  I'll call out to the anonymous troll who is doing this and see if he will listen.  Please revert the link now as the troll has been here and I don't want to violate WP:3RR.  BenBurch 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done  BenBurch 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to have worked so far.  The vandal has not returned as yet. BenBurch 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drat.  It just made things worse.  I was afraid of this, Jinxie.  BenBurch 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *NSS. Typical DU behavior. Jinxmchue 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Check the history after my posting.  Most of the vandals were on your side.  BenBurch 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why would vandals from "my side" delete the DUFU link? Jinxmchue 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You'll have to ask them.  They deleted the WHOLE article and replaced it with a Hammer & Sickle. BenBurch 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Okay, now that that is done, and I got the page protected, let us address your slander, Jinxie.  You claim with no proof whatsoever that I trolled DU to bring people to this dispute, and unless you can magically manufacture some proof that does not exist, you owe me an apology.  BenBurch 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have already done so, Burch. I showed that you posted a message on DU about your recent "fun" here. Jinxmchue 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, no, that was to a totally different article, and one I asked that they read, not edit.  Your argument analyzes to Ignoratio elenchi.  However, I know that you are not likely to ever address this issue honestly, and so I am dropping the matter.  BenBurch 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It doesn't matter what article it was. You drew people here by posting about your activities here. And no, you didn't say "Don't edit." You said "Don't vote." HUGE difference, Burch. If you want to drop it to avoid embarrassment, that's fine. I'm tired of your antics anyway. Jinxmchue 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It was another article.  A totally different article.  One that didn't even refer to this article.  Again, wanton mendacity on your part, and a repeat of the Ignoratio elenchi argument. You are the one who ought to feel embarrassed here, or would if you had any scruples. BenBurch 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Attempt to ask nicely for vandalism to cease had the opposite effect.  I have asked for semi-protection again. BenBurch 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewed request for semi-protection

message: I consider it to be exceedingly rude to engage in wholesale reverts of good-faith changes without comment on talk pages. I suggest people who are consistantly readding the following liks:
*People for Change, Message board started and maintained by members of the Howard Dean campaign in '04 with many DU members and former ones as well, devoted to change within the Democratic Party and Democracy for America's agenda. 
* Progressive Independent - Message board for Liberals and Progressives with many former DU members
* DUmmie FUnnies - Lampooning and criticism of DU
Justify such changes forthwith, paying specific attention to the strong consensus of the RFC respondees above. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should review previous discussions where consensus has been reached on many of these links before whole-sale blanking?--RWR8189 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your local consensus cannot override wikipedia policies or guildelines. WP:EL applies regardless of your consensus to ignore it. Wikipedia is not a battleground or politics discussion forum - I suggest those of you who wish to fight about politics go elsewhere. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately you do not have the power to unilaterally declare consensus on whether or not any of these links meet the WP:EL exceptions, that must be determined through discussion and consensus.--RWR8189 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such consensus has been reached, except for those of you who have no goal other than to engage in political games in this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where pray tell, has this consensus been reached?  Certainly not from the editors who commented after seeing the RFC, their comments leaned toward keep to no consensus on the status of the link.  As I said earlier, you do not have the power to unilaterally declare consensus on any given issue.--RWR8189 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the paradox of links to blogs and forums not being allowed in an article that the subject of is itself a blog or forum. I wonder why hypocrite has not nominated the article for deletion... Crockspot 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." This article is not about, or closely related to most of those random links. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no such hammering. Please point it out, or begin engaging in it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hammering will be directed at you, my friend, if you keep up this childish deletion. Your edits will be reverted by myself, BenBurch, or any number of others. This page is semi-protected for a reason. Crockspot 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, that was a TOTALLY over the line comment, and I mean TOTALLY. Threats of violence are not permitted on Wikipedia. BenBurch 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh please Ben, there was no threat. See comment a few below. Crockspot 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No fair reader could take that in any way except a threat of some sort;  Either a threat that you will engage in a revert war with the other editor, or a threat of physical violence against the other editor.  There is not a third option as I see it. So, you can pretend otherwise if you wish, but I read your real intentions loud and clear. BenBurch 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a third option, which is exactly how I meant it, in that several of us editors are going to hammer on him verbally, exactly as we did on you when you started on your crusade of deleting anything and everything conservative on Wiki. Read the entire thread of comments, you expletive deleted rassafrassa! Crockspot 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I do not take threats from rednames seriously, sorry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another elitist. I point you to exception 12 of WP:EL, when the link is about or related to the article. DUFU is all about the subject of this article, and CU's most active forum is related to and about the subject of this article, and contains a significant archive of posts that have been deleted from the DU website. Crockspot 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  And now I am no longer a "redname". Do you take me seriously now? Or will you find another excuse? Crockspot 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that linkspammed satirical blog is unquestionably relevent to the article, I would be shocked. You must realize it is of questionable relevence, quality and reliability, right? I do not take threats from editors who would not have their opinion taken seriously in policy discussions seriously. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to take you very seriously, since you accuse me of threats I have not made. If you are talking about the "hammering" comment, then you have no sense of context. You are being "hammered" by other editors here in the same way that we were "hammering" out a consensus. There is no threat there, real or implied.Crockspot 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless the disputes are fixed by others, I will fix them. I eagerly await someone trying to fix the article instead of have a political slapfight over it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: The claim has been made by Ben Burch that there is a consensus that this section should be removed. I am asking for explicit proof of this alleged consensus in the form of citations before the section is removed again.  I've read and re-read the "Requested Comments" section here and I see nothing addressing the entire "Offshoots" section at all. It's not even mentioned once. Jinxmchue 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * All the explicit proof you need is in the discussions above. BenBurch 05:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So in other words, you can't cite explicit proof of this alleged consensus. As this is the case, please refrain from editting out the section again. Thank you. Jinxmchue 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, it's all there for you to read, I'm just not going to spoon-feed it to you. BenBurch 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, you obviously cannot cite explicit proof. I see four comments in the RfC section above that amount to "leave the link" and one stating that blog links can be used if they are "about, or closely related to, the website itself." I see NOTHING that refers to the entire "Offshoots" section. Removing the section is not discussed anywhere on this page except here. Jinxmchue 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *There is absolutely no reason to remove the Offshoots section, which is both relevant and meets WP:EL. Keep VoiceOfReason 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have to agree with Jinxmchue and VoiceOfReason. Strong Keep Crockspot 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: BenBurch's edits were clearly made in bad faith. He is advocating the removal of the section, yet he is populating it with every blog that he can think of. I have reverted the page to a version previous to his bad faith edits. Grow up Ben Please conduct yourself maturely. Crockspot 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Please refrain from personal attacks. But I agree that the edits were probably made in bad faith; on his talk page he announced his intention to add some 30-odd links to the Offshoots section. VoiceOfReason 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have revised my comment above, and have posted a warning regarding bad faith edits on BenBurch's talk page. Crockspot 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ben, you as much as admitted that your edits were in bad faith. Please knock it off. VoiceOfReason 05:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Having "crossover" membership does not make these boards "offshoots," Ben. Changes reverted. Jinxmchue 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing out the entire "Offshoots" section

message: :PS, I have reverted your changes. Crockspot 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Obviously this dispute will not be settled between us. I suggest we take this to an arbitration/mediation proceeding. I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not acting in good faith, and that you have issued a serious warning on my talk page as retaliation.Crockspot 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Feel free to call for an RFC first, as that is the first step in this process and mediation is for disputes involving only two editors.  This does not.  And yes, I put a serious warning in there.  I'm betting if I looked at your little nest over at CU, you folks have been coordinating strategy here simply against my edits, in total violation of policy.  Or am I guessing wrong?  You are acting in the very most partisan and disgusting bad faith yourself in attempting to WP:OWN an article about a message board you despise.  And it CLEARLY is payback for the AfD of Conservative Underground.  That is absolutely clear to anybody.  Having said that, I am totally willing to compromise.  The section stays.  The DUFU link stays.  But also the other EQUALLY related offshoots stay too.  Or do you factually dispute any one of them?  Deal with the facts here, not the personalities.  I'd like to see your argument against each and every one of the links I posted. BenBurch 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * You would be wrong on the coordination issue, and on retaliation for the CU AfD. I let the CU thing go, and I have refrained from commenting about your edits on other sites after I was warned about it, even though there was no coordination, just commenting. How exactly does the Randi Rhodes site or the Mike Malloy site relate to DU, other than crossover membership? CU has crossover membership with DU, but we also have archived DU posts that have been deleted from DU, and cannot be found elsewhere. Our DU forum is the most active forum on the site. DUFU is a site that specifically lampoons DU. If crossover membership alone is a criteria, then a link to the Automobile Association of America would also be appropriate, no? I believe you are taking a serious stretch at this. Your motivations clearly seem to be to bolster your argument for removal of the offshoots section. That would meet the definition of bad faith. Add to that your threats on other sites to get your wiki admin friend to ban other editors. Please, take a step back and look objectively at what you are doing. You may be in danger of getting yourself banned. I honestly would not be happy to see that happen. I thing you have made some positive contributions to WP (as have I, to a lesser extent). Sometimes you can be quite reasonable, but other times, I wonder what is going on with you.Crockspot 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The Malloy board and the Randi Rhodes board are all basically refugees from DU much as the NU and PI boards are.  DU came first and people got disgusted and stopped posting there and moved to RR and MM.  They are totally appropriate.  I accept that the section has to stay, if for no other reason that you intend to WP:OWN it.  Given that, these links I have added are the ones I would expect to be there were the section complete.  They are all boards where DU members in the DU Diaspora wound up.  They all exist in relation to DU in an auxillary fashion, DU being still the 500# gorilla in the Liberal/Progressive world.  And they all RECRUIT from DU given the opportunity.  And topics banned at DU land on those boards to get thrashed out.  A good example would be the Andy Stephenson affair which wound up largely on Malloy's board when DU would have none of it.  Do I think this section ought to exist at all?  Nope.  But pragmatically, I cannot revert it forever given that you have organized to outnumber me.  So I intend to make sure it at least lives up to what it ought to be.  Unless you intend to extend your WP:OWNership to that as well.  BenBurch 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The webpages you are wanting to add to the "Offshoots" links section are related to DU, but they are not offshoots. To use the same example I used on your Talk page, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise are all offshoots of the original Star Trek series. A show like Babylon 5 is related to the original Star Trek series, but it is not an offshoot. You are quite adept at tossing out (baseless) accusations of WP:OWN and vandalism, but are quite short on arguments that actually support your edits. Jinxmchue 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see you decided to agree with me, Ben. Good. I hope this puts an end to the edit war over these links. Jinxmchue 04:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy of discussion from [[User talk:Ben Burch]]

message: So, what's the current debate about, exactly?  --Alecmconroy 09:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on Debate

message: Ben Burch has been handing out vandalism warnings to anyone and everyone who has removed his needless additions to the article's external links. I strongly suspect these warnings are being made in bad-faith. Even if they aren't, they are still wrong. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism:
"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
I have not acted in bad-faith in my edits on this page. I have made rational, intelligent, reasoned arguments in defense of my edits and have not made personal attacks of any shape or form (e.g. baseless accusations of vandalism). 
I will politely ask Ben to stop making these accusations of vandalism against people who disagree with his ideological viewpoints. If he cannot, I will bring this misuse of the Wiki rules to the admins' attention. Jinxmchue 03:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Is and Is Not Vandalism 

message: My edit summary got cut off because a glitch in my browser. The edit summary SHOULD say, "One incident does not make them 'known' for something" - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my last revert 

message: ...dealing with the fundraising efforts for him at DU and DUers' reactions (enthusiastic, some, skeptical others) to his plight. I mean, the guy has a section on Free Republic, and he was a DUer. It seems to make sense that the instance should be described in as much detail in this article as it is on the FR page. Objections? If so, the Andy Stephenson section on FR should probably be deleted (I'll push for that over there if it comes to that), because it's far more relevant here than it is there. Gordongekko909 01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I added that tag, as well as my justifications to the talk page. Since there already is an Andy Stephenson article, why not just add him to the notable users section, and wikilink his name? He is as notable as several of the people already on that list. Alternately, a very brief mention with a wikilink to the article. No sense duplicating content. Just a suggestion. Crockspot 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * That makes even more sense, and it's kind of what I did on the Free Republic page. I couldn't stick him in a "notable users" section because (as far as I know) he wasn't a Freeper; I left the link in the section it was for context reasons. 'course, if the dispute over FR's involvement in what happened to Mr. Stephenson gets resolved with FR having nothing to do with what ended up happening to him, then he should just be removed from the FR page altogether. Now if a certain anonymous vandal would just stop reverting the summary description and link to the Stephenson page on the FR page... Gordongekko909 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I feel your pain. An anon would not let any of my edits stand on the Andy Stephenson page, so I gave up and just added the dispute tag and put my evidence on the talk page. Andy actually was a [www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=Andy_Stephenson member of FreeRepublic]. Crockspot 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wow. That zot took a long time. Gordongekko909 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering adding an [[Andy Stephenson]] section... 

message: Okay, it's all quiet on the Western Front for the last few days now. I think we've reached the point where we can calmly and civilly discuss this link business. This is what I suggest:
I would like to organize a consensus-gathering discussion. A sort of "Links for Deletion" process. Each link will be considered individually. A listing on this page will be made for each link, with the name, the URL, and a brief description. Everyone will give an opinion keep, remove, or neutral for each link with a justification. Votes without reasons will be ignored. Discussion of reasons and further comment, as well as changing of votes, of course, is perfectly fine. At the end of a given time period (let's say, five days), we'll try and establish a consensus.
If nobody has any objections, I would like to organize and close these debates. Like I've said above, I'm completely neutral on this article, other than that I think it ought to be good and proper. Likewise, I hope I've demonstrated myself to be level-headed enough to carry this out properly. If anyone objects to my doing this, please say so, but I really believe I can do this neutrally. Likewise, if anyone objects to my both leading the discussion and casting votes, say so: If any one person believes that I should not cast votes and also try and assess consensus, I will refrain from casting votes.
Please give your opinion on my idea. If there seems to be support for it, I'll organize and summarize the links and try and have them up as soon as support is registered.
Thanks. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting out this link nonsense 

message: Thanks for agreeing to do this.
Okay, you all know how this works. Post to each link individually -- just knock the rest down so you have room to comment keep, remove, or neutral. See above for more.
It's barely Thursday local time (UTC +2) so I'll try and have this wrapped up by Monday evening / Tuesday morning, or before that if conversation has stagnated / consensus has been reached. A couple of things:
*Please remember to justify your votes, giving your own opinion.
*Opinions from Wikipedians not involved in this article currently are, of course, welcome, but I will take into consideration the user's history. IPs had better have good things to say. Similarly, if I think someone is trying to solicit votes from somewhere else, I'll keep that in mind at the end.
*This article has already been placed at RfC. If you want someone's opinion, ask them, but let's try to keep it off RfC for a second time.
When giving an opinion, keep in mind the following:
*The "Occasionally Accepted Links" segment of WP:EL are just that -- occasionally accepted. They can create an exception, but do not automatically.
*Part of WP:NPOV includes No Undue Weight.
*The purpose of external links in an article is to a) source and b) enrich the article.
Okay, here goes. If you see something on my summaries that is incorrect, please correct me. Also, I did not bother to register for anything, because the last thing I need is tons more spam. If you have a membership at any of these sites and thereby access to information I could not find, please post it.
::The group of editors working on this has ended discussion. These links can be further discussed and edited, but please keep in mind that, for many of these, general consensus has been reached. Before making any changes to the External Links section, please note what stands here and below. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * See note from BenBurch several sections below, apparently P4C has been hacked, and is being abandoned, so discussion about this particular link appears to be moot.Crockspot 14:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *In other words, Crackpot, you are a one of those freak trolls who plant nutty comments on DU so you can then rush back over to CU and make fun of them. You should not be involved in this process AT ALL.  You have no objectivity here and are here only to slant the DU article. 216.55.177.58 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I suggest you examine my edit history here at Wikipedia, and learn the rules of civility,  NPOV, and assuming good faith before you launch personal attacks and namecalling on other editors. This is not DU or CU, and your behaviour is not tolerated here on Wikipedia. Now... I wonder who it is that usually calls me crackpot... Is that you Brad? Did BenBurch send you here to cause trouble? Crockspot 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Anonymous IP 216.55..., you're not going to get anywhere by being uncivil. Please stop. Crockspot, don't let him get to you. People who act like that are only looking for angry reactions. - Che 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To Crockspot. Those facts were stated for the discussion's record.  Not everyone has had time to follow this saga and certainly not all Wiki editors are aware of the close relationship so I mentioned it in the interests of disclosure for the purpose of this subdiscussion only. If, like CU, democraticunderground had a thread up about this I wager many DU wiki editors would be here making similar points to the ones I've made. The thing that really bothered me about the thread at CU you participated in is that I didn't notice any spirit of helping improve this wiki entry, rather to toy with it as payback.  If you can contest any of the facts I stated in my votes, please do so because they're all that should matter. 65.172.235.22 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The threads from CU that you reference have to be at least a month old, if not older. When I first came to Wiki, my motives may have been different, but I have since learned to appreciate this project for what it is. A simple examination of my edit history will bear that out. Aside from a few initial run-ins with one particular editor, my edits have overall been constructive and positive. I could have easily chosen to use another user name than crockspot, and avoid such accusations. However, I have nothing to hide, and am not ashamed of who I am, or what I have posted elsewhere. Crockspot 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say your opinion would be discounted; I just wanted to know how you suddenly popped up. As you've probably seen, this article is prone to being influenced by people in creative ways. I'm just trying to keep tabs on everything while we sort this out. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, there are no current threads on CU regarding Wiki. There was some discussion when Protest Warrior was up for deletion, and BenBurch is mentioned practically every day for his general activities, but the last time I mentioned Wiki on CU was in regard to the FSB Ripcord article that I recently started. Rather than be accused of "organizing to disrupt" wikipedia, I have chosen not to discuss editing issues on CU at all. Crockspot 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the 65. IP was trying to point any fingers at you. In any case, that's not really any longer an issue. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Somebody has just created a thread on CU regarding Wiki. It's a new registrant making his first post, and frankly I question whether he's truly what he says he is. I suspect he might be an agitator trying to drive CU sockpuppets to this article for the purpose of making CU look bad. The user in question, like Ben Burch, thinks that this process is a "vote", which it is not. VoiceOfReason 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a very bright troll. They will just get themselves blocked here for organizing disruption on another site, and banned at CU for being a troll. Those pesky IP addresses. Crockspot 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Acknowledged. Although the consensus is heavily in favor of remove anyway, so I'll refrain from re-adding the link. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  consensus on links 

message: *http://www.peopleforchange.net/
*member info: unavailable
*User-motivated commentaries and forums on "grassroots democracy" and "the spirit of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign", plus blogs. Alleged crossover membership with DU. Also regular news postings from syndicated news outlets.
*other: Forums only readable by members.
:* See note from BenBurch several sections below, apparently P4C has been hacked, and is being abandoned, so discussion about this particular link appears to be moot.Crockspot 14:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People for Change

message: *http://www.progressiveindependent.com/
*member info: unavailable 
*Forum for syndicated news articles and opinion threads, based on "leftist" thought with the intent to "combat ... growing propaganda from the corporate-owned" government. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forums available to guests.
# NO. No relationship to DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressive Independent

message: *http://www.conservativeunderground.com/
*member info: 3,107 total, 625 active 
*Forum for commentary and news. No mission statement. One forum dedicated to commentary on DU. Name may or may not be a take-off on DU.
*other: Forums available to guests. Uses vBulletin forum engine.
# Yes. dedicated to commentary on DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative Underground

message: *http://www.neutralunderground.com/forum/index.php
*member info: 477 registered members
*Forum for commentary and news. Includes "right", "left", and "neutral" (aka both) forums. No mission statement. Name may or may not be a take-off on DU. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forums available to guests. Uses vBulletin forum engine. No parent page (neutralunderground.com is an automatic redirect to the forums).
# Yes. "Copycat" and imitator of DU (i.e. underground etc)
# Yes. A place where DUers and CUers can meet and debate. Monitors both CU and DU. Crockspot 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Underground

message: *http://www.democraticwarrior.com/
*member info: unavailable
*Forum for commentary and news, plus editorials. Self-titled for "Democrats with a backbone". No mission statement. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forum available to guests. Uses vBulletin forum engine.
# NO. No relationship to DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic Warrior

message: *http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/
*member info: 464 registered members
*Forum for commentary and syndicated news. One forum dedicated to commentary on CU. Alleged crossover membership with DU. Encourages 'flames'. No mission statement. Name may or may not be takeoff on DU.
*other: Forum available to guests. Subspace of www.activeboard.com, a free forum hosting site.
# Yes. "Copycat" and imitator of DU (i.e. underground etc)
# Yes. Another Underground takeoff, monitors both DU and CU. Crockspot 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Underground

message: *http://www.democrats.com/
*member info: unavailable
*Forum for commentary and syndicated news in "support of the Democratic Party and Howard Dean", plus blogs. Daily news service. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forum available to guests. Launched before DU (2000).
# NO. No relationship to DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democrats .com

message: *http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/index.php
*member info: circa 12k members (estimated)
*Talk forum for Mike Malloy's show on Air America. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forum available to guests. Subpage of MikeMalloy.com, the official site of Malloy's radio show.
# NO. No relationship to DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike Malloy Truthseeker's Forum

message: *http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/
*member info: circa 12k members (estimated)
*Talk forum for Randi Rhodes' show on Air America. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forum available to guests. Subpage of therandirhodesshow.com, the official site of Rhodes' show.
# NO. No relationship to DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Randi Rhodes Message Board

message: *http://www.bartcopnation.com
*member info: unavailable
*Talk forum dedicated (but not affiliated with) Bartcop's blog. Features daily commentary from site owner. Alleged crossover membership with DU.
*other: Forum available to guests. Uses DCForums engine.
# NO. No relationship to DU Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bartcop Reader

message: *http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DUPanicRoom/
*member info: 667 (missed that the first time)
*Talk forum for DU members when DU is down.
*other: Forum totally unavailable to guests. Subpage of Yahoo! Groups.
# Yes. Clearly an offshoot Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The DU Panic Room

message: *http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/
*member info: personal blog; in general, 5-15 comments per post
*Daily commentary on DU posts and blogs.
*other: Has an article about this page, which can be seen as the third post here. Only non-forum link other than DU links.
# Yes. Clearly an offshoot Dman727 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DUmmie FUnnies

message: To the anonymous IP 65.172.235.22: I think you're kind of missing the point of this discussion. It's not to determine whether the links are 'child' or 'split' message boards of DU. It's to determine whether the links are relevant to this article per WP:EL. Please consider that in your arguments.
Also, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that, given your contribs, you're either a not logged-in user or you're a non-static IP. If that's the case, let us know who you are. If it's not, ie if you're new to Wikipedia, I'm curious to know who asked you to come here.
Feel free to discuss, everyone, and respond to each others' comments with civil comments and criticisms. This is a process, not a vote. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In other words, Crackpot, you are a one of those freak trolls who plant nutty comments on DU so you can then rush back over to CU and make fun of them. You should not be involved in this process AT ALL.  You have no objectivity here and are here only to slant the DU article. 216.55.177.58 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I suggest you examine my edit history here at Wikipedia, and learn the rules of civility,  NPOV, and assuming good faith before you launch personal attacks and namecalling on other editors. This is not DU or CU, and your behaviour is not tolerated here on Wikipedia. Now... I wonder who it is that usually calls me crackpot... Is that you Brad? Did BenBurch send you here to cause trouble? Crockspot 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Anonymous IP 216.55..., you're not going to get anywhere by being uncivil. Please stop. Crockspot, don't let him get to you. People who act like that are only looking for angry reactions. - Che 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To Crockspot. Those facts were stated for the discussion's record.  Not everyone has had time to follow this saga and certainly not all Wiki editors are aware of the close relationship so I mentioned it in the interests of disclosure for the purpose of this subdiscussion only. If, like CU, democraticunderground had a thread up about this I wager many DU wiki editors would be here making similar points to the ones I've made. The thing that really bothered me about the thread at CU you participated in is that I didn't notice any spirit of helping improve this wiki entry, rather to toy with it as payback.  If you can contest any of the facts I stated in my votes, please do so because they're all that should matter. 65.172.235.22 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The threads from CU that you reference have to be at least a month old, if not older. When I first came to Wiki, my motives may have been different, but I have since learned to appreciate this project for what it is. A simple examination of my edit history will bear that out. Aside from a few initial run-ins with one particular editor, my edits have overall been constructive and positive. I could have easily chosen to use another user name than crockspot, and avoid such accusations. However, I have nothing to hide, and am not ashamed of who I am, or what I have posted elsewhere. Crockspot 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say your opinion would be discounted; I just wanted to know how you suddenly popped up. As you've probably seen, this article is prone to being influenced by people in creative ways. I'm just trying to keep tabs on everything while we sort this out. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, there are no current threads on CU regarding Wiki. There was some discussion when Protest Warrior was up for deletion, and BenBurch is mentioned practically every day for his general activities, but the last time I mentioned Wiki on CU was in regard to the FSB Ripcord article that I recently started. Rather than be accused of "organizing to disrupt" wikipedia, I have chosen not to discuss editing issues on CU at all. Crockspot 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the 65. IP was trying to point any fingers at you. In any case, that's not really any longer an issue. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Somebody has just created a thread on CU regarding Wiki. It's a new registrant making his first post, and frankly I question whether he's truly what he says he is. I suspect he might be an agitator trying to drive CU sockpuppets to this article for the purpose of making CU look bad. The user in question, like Ben Burch, thinks that this process is a "vote", which it is not. VoiceOfReason 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a very bright troll. They will just get themselves blocked here for organizing disruption on another site, and banned at CU for being a troll. Those pesky IP addresses. Crockspot 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Acknowledged. Although the consensus is heavily in favor of remove anyway, so I'll refrain from re-adding the link. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Discussion

message: Is there some sort of controversy about Carl Sheeler's campaign that I am not aware of? The user 132.241.246.111‎ has removed his mention in the "DUer's running for office" section a couple of times, leaving only the edit summary "Evidence?". I have replaced it twice, this last time citing a link to Sheeler's campaign website. I left a note on the user's talk page, but judging from the lack of response to others, and a history of unsummarized and confusing edits, I don't really expect for the user to clear this up. Are there some charges of the campaign being a hoax that I don't know about? Does anyone else have any insight to add as to why this user is so adamant about deleting that line? Crockspot 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally just realized what the editor's concern is, that Carl is not a member of DU. They removed the line again. I reverted, and just added a link to CarlSheeler4U's user profile, but it can only be viewed if someone is logged in to DU. The DU user certainly claims to be Carl Sheeler, and looking at the campaign site, and comparing the posts on DU, there is nothing posted by that user on DU that contradicts in any way the stances that Carl holds on his campaign site. (End Iraq war, impeach Bush, etc., etc.) I think the editor is concerned that being a member of DU will make Carl "look bad", but there is nothing inconsistent with his campaign, and the general views expressed on DU. (End Iraq war, impeach Bush, etc., etc.) Maybe the editor should be talking to Carl about his views? Crockspot 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was my take on the remover's concern too.  A shame they didn't share that with us here... BenBurch 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Crockpot, you done good.  I asked him and he is indeed the real person.  BenBurch 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a link to that, so we can cite it in the article, and put this edit skirmish to rest? I'd like to get rid of the growing list of cites on that one sentence. Crockspot 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Sheeler 

message: They seemed of dubious validity, so I reverted them... a rare attack on this page from the left rather than the right. Is a comment like "DUers don't do shit but sit at their PCs and hate on the Left" sufficient to override WP:AGF? VoiceOfReason 03:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't surprise me, VOR, DU is a very centrist forum, and that doesn't sit well with many on the Left. BenBurch 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Impenetrability! That's what I say! VoiceOfReason 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[User:Revolución|Revolución]] 

message: Wow, I almost missed the links discussion and poll as I was taking a wikibreak.  But I came over to let you all know that People For Change was hacked by criminals, who apparently thought they could get something of value by holding it for ransom, and that there were no backups of the forum, and it is being taken down.  So, obviously its entry has to go now unless there was a good archive of it on archive.org, which I doubt as it does a poor job of archiving that sort of content.  So, thats the news from Lake Woebegon.  I'll consider my opinions on the links and come up with something to post tomorrow-ish.  Hope you are all well.  BenBurch 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's only gone temporarily.  As noted by the Admin on the homepage, they expect to be back shortly.  All their data has been routinely backed up; apparently they rely one something a little more professional than archive.org 65.172.235.22 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People For Change GONE 

message: the following is text removed by benburch, et al, restored in full. benburch, et al, is/are acting solely on behalf of the owners and business associates of democratic underground. a visit to the website, democraticunderground.com will confirm his close and daily ties to the moderators and operators of the site:
Jai4WKC08, cynatnite, SalmonChantedEvening, arnheim, HeeBGBz, astonamous, happydreams, dogman, hack89, rppper, Moody Bluz, nathan hale, TahitiNut, DemoGreen, TacticalPeek, AZDemDist6, hootinholler, Hanover_Fist, Vickers, GreatCaesarsGhost, Prisoner_Number_Six, Career Prole, tkmorris, DemoTex, Renegade Six, RobertSeattle, onestarnot, oneighty, landdaddy, slater71, UTUSN, MadMaddie, Jack Rabbit, tabasco, hwmnbn, BewilderedCitizen, jokerman93, LIBERALNAVYVET, Earth_First, genie_weenie, oneold1-4u, Dees, BrotherBuzz, Bigmack, Tierra_y_Libertad, bpilgrim, lldu, alfredo, Kerry fan, meatloaf, ismnotwasm, TX-RAT, Chef, tabasco, madokie, Nickster, TomInTib, paineinthearse, Ron_Green, Uncle Joe, benddem, fknobbit, MrsGrumpy, jschurchin
thanks go to one current and one past moderator at democratic underground for providing me this list. according to them, each one on this list has been cautioned by site owner, david allen one time or more about being too obvious in their uh, fascist leanings. no threats about being banned were involved, just friendly warnings to the effect of being a bit more circumspect in their future posts. gotta keep the dough rolling in, dontcha know, and man do these people love to give. average amount of their donations were about one hundred dollars a quarter, with the largest donations around 1,000 dollars a quarter. one third of the donars on the list admitted in emails to du staff that they were regular and welcomed posters at 'arch-nemisis' site, free republic. again, thanks go to those two du mods who were kind and honest enough to provide these details of david allen's malfeasant mistreatment of his more naive members (they would be the progressive and true democrats, there- their avereage donations are around 5 and ten dollars a month, if that). and those du mods' names are...now, wouldn't you like to know?St just 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now...  What the heck are you talking about? I have no business or other ties with David Allen (aka Skinner) other than being a user of and donor to his site, and somebody who is working towards the same goal as he is.  I have no privilege on DU whatsoever, and I think I get on their nerves fairly often.  BenBurch 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for St just's concluding question: No, I wouldn't like to know.  It doesn't matter.  With or without the name of the source, the statement isn't verifiable by our standards.  See WP:NOR.  Therefore, I don't even need to consider the question whether this list would be a reasonable addition to the article if it were properly verified.  JamesMLane t c 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition - It is likely purely BS since moderators do not know EVER what skinner IMs to users.  Or how much ANYBODY donates.  EVER.  I was a moderator for two terms in the run-up to the '04 elections, and we simply did not have access to that information at all.  Any "moderator" who says that he or she does have such data is jerking your chain, St Just.  Your sources are leading you down the Primrose Path.  BenBurch 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone, I hope that this user's contribs serve as proof enough that he has an axe to grind, and that it isn't really worth engaging him because you already know the kinds of answers you'll get. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by St Just who also reverted the page back before that last archive point