![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User: NBGPWS, you added some some sentences to this section that begin with what I believe are called, " weasel words", to wit, "many people believe..." and "others believe". These are discouraged. Additionally those claims have no supporting citations. You did, however, delete the text, "Many believe Protest Warrior simply serves well to illuminate the true aspects of their leftist opposition. The most common complaint of Protest Warrior detractors is of their use of infiltration; that they "crash" the events of other activists, rather than organize their own events." Doesn't it have as much supporting citations as what you have written and therefore is as equally valid? Lawyer2b 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a section on this PW incident, illuminating the hypocrisy of PW, who insist that they have a right to counterprotest within the ranks of groups they oppose, but deny that same right to others.
"Another counter-demonstrator tried to be clever, by holding up a sign that read “NUKE IRAN.” We politely asked him to take it somewhere else. When he declined, we followed him around, blocking his sign with our American flags, until he eventually gave up and crossed over to the opposite corner " Are we all OK with that? 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggested to rhubarbaby that he replace the missing pic of Alan and Kfir, but he never did. So I did. I'm looking out for you guys! NBGPWS 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
rhurbarbabythewrathbore refused to address my concerns - I trust you (neverborn) will have more intestinal fortitude.
1) When is the last time Alan or Kfir particpiated in a PW counterprotest? Will they be counterprotesting Cindy Sheehan in Crawford? They're only 100 miles away. If not, why would the leaders of such an 'important' counterprotest organization fail to capitalize on such a significant opportunity?
2) Why is the gallery section of the PW site no longer being updated with official galleries? Why are PW videos posted to youtube, but not to the PW 'video page'? Why is it no longer being updated?
3) It definately appears that Alan and Kifer are no longer actively involved in any manner of political discussion on the various PW fora. Please point me to any recent threads where either of them discussed politics. Please point me to any posts discussing politics by either them in the last YEAR.
3b) It also appears that they are no longer actively counterprotesting either. I see no couterprotest activity from Kifer since he was attacked by the Freepers in Crawford a YEAR ago, and even longer for Alan. Please provide documentation otherwise.
4) What happened to 'Operation Butterfly'? What was 'Operation Butterfly'?
5) Please address the obvious discrepancies in these statements and estimate the current number of PW's who actively counterprotest in real life in the streets:
"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005
Thanks NBGPWS 07:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005
(by the way only 13 PW's showed (less than 50% estimated) up in DC, as documented by the Washington Post) NBGPWS 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Face the facts. Kifer and Alan have abandonded PW, and the once-mightly S.S. Protest Warrior is floundering like a rudderless, captainless 'ghost ship' which is about to sink! Take the helm and save it WB! NBGPWS 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
RUTHFULBARBARITY..
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final Warning
DO NOT DELETE
FINAL WARNING to Ruthfulbarbarity
Don't you EVER delete what I write again!
I WILL be lodging an official Wiki Complaint against you and I am reposting what you, Ruthfulbarbarity, in blatant disregard for Wiki rules, policies and standards, and in a despicable act of criminal vandalism, deleted!
DO NOT DELETE OR YOU WILL BE BANNED
NBGPWS 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I added 2 links on the interview Kifer gave to the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
VERY TELLING!
NBGPWS 10:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Added 2 more links to the man and organization Kifer gave the interview to.
NBGPWS 10:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 11:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 18:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing vandalism, insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on multiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.
NBGPWS
18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why you deleted a VERBATIM PW quote and the link I added. Are you arguing that because the Protest Warrior's writing style is bad, that he shouldn't be quoted??? It's not Wiki's problem that the PW is "unintelligible' as you claim, nor should it be paraphrased or corrected. It's a QUOTE, and described a critical PW tactic, and I added it back in.
In the future, please use this discussion page BEFORE you delete or change something.
Thanks!
NBGPWS 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with user Damburger on adding a link under 'islamophobia'. The following quote comes directly from Kifer and Alan:
Is everybody OK with that?
NBGPWS 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source that says that quote is islamophobic? -- Tbeatty 06:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I also added Hate Groups. Their opposition to, and statements against Islam make them fall under that Wiki classification as well.
"A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or other sector of society.'
NBGPWS 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comments would make a great blog entry or your own research paper and some people may even find them to be true. Wikipedia, however, requires a number of things before you can publish it here. The first is that it has been previously published in a reliable source. Find an article in the New York Times that they are Islamophobic. Second, Wikipedia requirese WP:verifiability. A year from now, you may not be around to use your logic to prove they are Islamophobes. Therefore, the claim must be verifiable and cited. Third, Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research. Your synthesis of "islamophobe" from the Wikipeida defintion of islamaphobe and a statement by PW is expressly forbidden. This is directly from the WP:OR page of no-nos. "A is true, B is true, therefore C is true" can only be included if C has been published previously. "Self-evident" doesn't count. It must come from a Reliable Source. None of these are negotiable points. I encourage you to request arbitration. I am firmly rooted in the facts and policy of Wikipedia and by your own admission your inclusion of these items is based on data that is simply not allowed to be published here.-- Tbeatty 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_36.gif
I need only reference the founder's own words and this official PW sign to prove Islamophobia and 'hate group'. Please request arbitration. If you contend content from PW can't be used, the paragraph from Kifer responding to the article about PW anti-abortion protests MUST be removed, along with ALL other quotes directly from PW, yes? I am deleting that paragraph now.
NBGPWS 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've got a problems with both pieces of evidence being used to argue for the inclusion of these terms:
Tbeatty - quit vandalizing the article. The massive decline in traffic on the PW website is significant. This has already been discussed. Next time you plan to vandalize the article, discuss your proposed vandalism here first.
Thanks
NBGPWS 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Lipton redirects here. Kfir is under discussion. The article is substantially about these guys. Therefore this qualifies as WP:BIO rules.-- Tbeatty 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
tbeatty - quit vandalizing the article. The massive decline in traffic on the PW website is significant. This has already been discussed. Next time you plan to vandalize the article, discuss your proposed vandalism here first.
Thanks
NBGPWS 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not vandalism. Please WP:AGF The Alexa website makes none of the claims that were cited. What you are doing is Original Research and synthesis of positions. Sorry. It just doesn't belong here.-- Tbeatty 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Please AGF. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is considered a personal attack to accuse editors of vandalism when edits are made in good faith.-- Tbeatty 05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of these words here seems odd to me in light of the fact these people are protest in support of the state. Perhaps saying they oppose statism should be included in a quote from the organisations own statements? Damburger 09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The links accusing them of CIA funding should go in the criticism section (although be sure that its clear that this isn't proven). As for 'statism' - the fact that we disagree about it would suggest that the definition is hardly clear, and there isn't a consensus. Thus the sensible thing is to allow the Protest Warriors to explain their position in their own words and have a quote. Damburger 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I added 'rocnrev' back into criticisms. There's lots of DOCUMENTED info there, including screenshots, that is available nowhere else.
NBGPWS 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Coming Additions
You'll note that Wiki articles on political forums often link to controversial and significant threads themselves, or note their content, ergo DU with 'tsunami theories', and the following section on Free Republic. I will use this content on FR as inspiration. I'm compiling a 'best of PW threads' section now!
"Allegations Of extremism and bigotry
Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives. The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings, yet epithets such as "faggot" or "raghead" are fairly common, and are not grounds for a post to be removed.
Free Republic is often accused of being extremist and far-right (even popular conservative talk show host Sean Hannity has described the site as "fringe" [14]), and has been criticized for harboring "hate speech" regarding certain groups of people, such as homosexuals, Arabs, Muslims, Han Chinese[citation needed] and illegal immigrants. An example the site's alleged extremism and bigotry can be found in 2005, when a forum poster circulated a petition asking the Iranian government not to execute two homosexual teenagers, but was rebuked by forum users for his position (some of the users supported the execution, for various reasons, including allegations that the teenagers were being executed for sexual assault on a minor, as opposed to simply being homosexual).[15] Some members have also expressed support for Apartheid South Africa [16]. Many members also strongly supported Tom Tancredo's statement that the United States should "nuke" Mecca in retalation for a further terrorist attack on American soil.[17] Many Free Republic users attribute these accusations to political correctness and deny that they have any basis in fact."
NBGPWS 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I think there might be some debate on this issue I thought it deserved its own section.
If it is easily verifiable, just stating a fact like, "There have been no videos posted to the Protest Warrior website since 2004" does not strike me as original research because there really seems to be no conclusion; it's just a statement of fact. I think the sentence can be included in the article. Opinions? Lawyer2b 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Verfiable. Notable. Sourced reliably. Those are the minimum requirements. I don't think it meets the WP:RS. Video's may have been posted and deleted. Videos may not be in the location that was looked. etc, etc. Using the website as a primary source to derive facts is the definition of Original Research. The website as a list of videos and that can be sourced. Reading that list and making a claim about it is original research. It's a slippery slope. It may seem that this Original Research is harmless but it won't end there. If that minutiae of detail was so notable, a reputable source would have published it. -- Tbeatty 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I repeat....
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 09:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am only interested in insuring that a reader who might not be familiar with Protest Warrior gets an accurate picture of it - an 'activist' organization that is home to under 100 'activists' - with founders who are no longer active in the organization they founded but have now abandoned - with a documented history of violence, bigotry, racism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. The repeated efforts of the PW defenders to delete anything that gives an accurate portrayal of PW is unconscionable. For instance, Wiki articles on Free Republic, and Democratic Underground, 2 organizations that are infinitely more important then PW, and much more closely scrutinized on Wiki have sections for critical dissenting views, links to notable, controversial threads, and openly talk about those sites' popularity on the web. Whenever I include similar info, it is removed by Protest Warriors and their defenders. I WELCOME arbitration or whatever they call it. BRING IT ON!
NBGPWS 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
First off, they both violate WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means RockNRev's "PWNED!" site is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site or the Scott and Jerry ARA site back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. -- Neverborn 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The report was from 'Central Texas Racist Action' a part of the well established Anti Racist Action Network.
Please see:
They likely have many more active members than Protest Warrior, and are undeniably much more active than Protest Warrior when it comes to counterprotesting.
It's going back in.
I am seeking guidance to see if PW can be classified as 'dead', 'dormant' or 'no longer active' as the founders have not counterprotested in over a year nor communicated with their members regarding their status.
NBGPWS 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It violates WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means the blog in your ARA edit is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site, the Scott and Jerry ARA site, or the blog back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. -- Neverborn 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"it started with clorox's (ELAC) (real name Brett Chance) politics. He comes from a Roman Catholic, Republican family, and while he considers himself technically an independent, during the 2004 election he was strongly pro- Bush. He joined an organization called ProtestWarrior.com, an organization that poked fun at and disrupted liberal protestors during the campaign. Then someone hacked the ProtestWarrior.com website and posted personal information about its members?including clorox?on Indymedia websites. Clorox says it took the Indymedia sites weeks to remove the hacked information, despite multiple requests. On the other hand, says clorox, Indymedia sites would eliminate any pro-Bush articles he posted on their sites almost immediately.
"They claim to be a free speech outlet, but they're not," says clorox. "So that's the time when my skills in hacking and political ideology merged, and I was ready to take it to the next level."
Clorox gathered similar-minded hackers around him and created rightwingextremist.org, dedicated to combating left-wing hackers over the Internet. It was a combination of politics and hacking, one so-called "hacktivist" group against another. Eventually clorox discovered a weakness in Indymedia's website programming that allowed him to install a hack that redirected Indymedia visitors to websites of his choosing, like rightwingextremist.org and other pro-Bush sites."
Shouldn't this be referenced in the article? ELAC clorox Protest Warrior busted for hacking
Should I add it in?
NBGPWS 08:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 Protest Warrior
NBGPWS 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the above mediation is currently officially limited to edits in the actual article, I have created this separate section. At some future time, if the mediation case is amended to include User:NBGPWS' behavior on the talk page, we can merge the two. Lawyer2b 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lawyer2b 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My input is that there continues to be an attempt to add almost exlusively negative information that is 1) not reliably sourced or verfiable 2) not neutrally presented and 3) not relevant. Wikipeida is not a blog. I would like to see NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) expand his contributions beyond this article so that he can learn more about what Wikipedia is and is not. -- Tbeatty 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has "exhausted the communities patience." Please weigh in here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NBGPWS. -- Tbeatty 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, why did you delete this info after you yourself, modified it to 'claims to monitor'? Please document your claim that either Scott or Jerry were arrested for assault and plead guilty to disorderly conduct. This is a very serious, and potentially slanderous or libelous charge you're making.
"Protest Warrior is on a 'watch list' of Centex Anti Racist Action, a watchdog group which claims to monitor racist and hate groups in the Southwest. [26] [27] who liken the organization to Brown shirts (a label which, as the article mentions, the Protest Warriors have applied to leftists) [28]. The same article also accused the forum on the website of hosting White supremacist views. The author of these criticisms was recently arrested for various assaults related to his protesting. He plead guilty to a 'disorderly conduct' ."
Thanks.
NBGPWS 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To Tbeatty:
Not to be insulting, but If you can't tell 'jason' from 'jerry' then you don't have the intellectual capacity to be participating on Wiki. The fact that you added SUCH slanderous libelous derogatory info- accusing the author of being arrested and pleading guilty to a crime - without double checking your info is VERY troubling too. No offense, but I am going to ask that you be banned from editing this article (and the DU article which you keep vandalizing too). Sorry
NBGPWS 23:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I included the number of active Protest Warriors - those expected to take part in a nationwide PW counterprotest - PW's reason for existance. The info came from a PW Chapter leader. Someone deleted it. Why? I am concerned that people get a realistic idea of PW's size:
Note the discrepansies
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." (frontpagemag.com 2004)
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it" (national PW couterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA) ethanmx2 (PW Chapter leader) Aug 5, 2005 (13 actually showed up in DC - less than half expected)
Isn't the SIZE of PW important? How can this be addressed?
NBGPWS 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity: By the way - I looked through the archives and I couldn't find where the hacking by Protest Warrior Brett Chance (ELAC) was discussed and issue settled. Could you please point me to it? Thanks NBGPWS 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ruthful, that the article doesn't say anything about the size of the organization. It sounds like you want to make a case, by including a documented list of Protest Warrior activities, that the size of the organization is less than advertised. You may or may not be right, but this is, again, original research. If you want the article to include statements about the size of the Protest Warrior organization, I think you need to find verifiable sources that actually address that topic. Am I misundertanding what you want to do? Lawyer2b 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B wrote:
" It sounds like you want to make a case, by including a documented list of Protest Warrior activities, that the size of the organization is less than advertised. "
HUH??? What size is PW 'advertised' to be? What size do you estimate PW to be?
Don't you think it's important that a reader has an idea of the size of any activist organization? Is an organization with tens of thousands of active members different than one with a few dozen? NBGPWS 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
To point out, Hail to the Chief wasn't just in DC. South Florida actually had a stronger showing than the DC chapter; I have their video on my computer. Unfortunately, their web site seems to be down at the moment. Rogue 9 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a section on past campaigns, Please add your documented verifiable and reliable info on 'official' PW campaigns to this new section. I'll add a few tonight. RB, NB or R9, what was the official PW name of the operation referred to as the 'crawford incident'? Thanks ( can someone make an archive? I don't know how. Thanks)
NBGPWS 00:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Note to Lawyer2B.... I see you addressed Ruthfulbarbarity as 'ruthful'. Some friendly advice... He's VERY touchy about people not using his full handle, or 'RB', which he said was OK! I urge caution lest he smite you!
NBGPWS 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am being perfectly civil and don't need your advice, thank you. You have way more admonitions from Wiki gurus like Kuzaar for YOUR behavior than I do for mine, so I respectfully suggest that you 'put a cork in it', RB
NBGPWS 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am pefectly composed. I respectfully suggest that your time might be better spent adding to the article rather than foisting your unsolicited and unneeded advice upon me, my good sir. Might you write a section on Protest Warrior Brett Chance's hacking of Indymedia for our consideration? NBGPWS 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Need I remind you once again of your own conduct?
"you hyperactive, dim chimpanzee. "Ruthfulbarbarity 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparing me to Bush was a LOW BLOW!
NBGPWS 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I seek only to improve the quality of the article, and considering the large amount of content which was written or edited by me, content that has stood up to the challenges of at least 3 active Protest Warriors (who many feel shouldn't be editing an article on an organization in which they are members of anyway) my contributions have been of critical importance, if I do say so myself! I hope, despite your animosity towards me, that you will agree, my good sir. NBGPWS 07:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 07:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) TheKaplan;
I can't find any appropriate Wiki-approved sources that documented 'Operation Miltary Shield". Where did you get your info? Thanks NBGPWS 07:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we De-Weasel this article. "generally characterized as pro bush" is totally unacceptable without documentation.
NBGPWS 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) RB - just to clear a couple things up...
1) YOU were also banned from Protest Warrior, before you came crawling back.
2) NBG was NOT banned from PW. 'Jeff Gannon' was, obstensibly for posting 'pornography' a montage of Jeff Gannon pics that showed no genetalia or even his ass. This photo was so innacuous that it could be shown on network TV during prime time.
3) I ask that you address me ONLY as NBGPWS
NBGPWS 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "centex watchlist" bit of the criticism re WP:V as pointed out above, and replaced it with a more general criticism section that is supported by the existing sources. The section, obviously, needs to be expanded; this was just a start. Happy editing, TheKaplan 18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been deemed in violation of WP:V
Who keeps removing 'admitted dug addict' Rush Limbuagh? It's proven fact. Warning - The next time it's deleted the offending party will be charged with vandalism.
NBGPWS 22:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 04:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies!
I offer my sincere apologies to those editors I wrongly accused of vandalism. I am pretty new, and was repeatedly accused of vandalism by some of the editors who have been working on this article over what were merely content disputes, so I had an incorrect idea of what vandalism was. I will strive to be more circumspect in my accusations. I ask that user Jossi take an active role in editing this article to ensure balance.
NBGPWS 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean balance in the editing process. There are 3 active Protest Warriors and 4 supporters who I contend use WP in an inconsistant manner to exclude much valid criticism and other info which they consider unfavorable to Protest Warrior. That is exactly WHY - *I* asked for FORMAL MEDIATION. Do I need to reference the thread on Protest Warrior asking members to skew this article to make sure PW is viewed in a positive light? I don't want to waste any more discussing this, my good sir. I also kindly ask that you refrain from accusing ME of vandalism which I gather is verboten per WP. "The only individual who's been vandalizing this article-repeatedly-is you." Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) As civil-rights icon Rodney King once pleaded "can't we just all get along?"
NBGPWS 04:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Added back in Notable Posts
Wiki articles on Free Republic, and Democratic Underground, 2 organizations that are infinitely more important and popular than PW (according to Alexa rankings), and much more closely scrutinized by their supporters here on Wiki have sections with links to notable, even controversial threads - threads that are not mentioned on third party sites.
Info like this needs to be in the PW article, so I added it. Why are the PW forum members and supporters so reluctant to have their own words published?
NBGPWS 07:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
From the Wiki Free Republic entry
The Free Republic’s members have been known to have been involved in vandalism against websites they perceive to be liberal, with administrators often calling for a coordinated [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535547/posts] vandalism against information websites they perceived to have a liberal bias, primarily related to major racial and political topics. Several administrators have actively endorsed plan’s for these attacks and have gone as far as providing tips on how to evade detection.
Allegations of extremism ===
Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives.
-cyberstalking-
One case involved the owner of a restaurant who notified authorities when an underage Jenna Bush attempted to illegally purchase liquor at the establishment. The owner's name, residential address, date of birth, drivers license and registration information, physical description, and information about her infant child was posted on the Free Republic forums by users. Forum users then advocated violence toward the restaurant's patrons, as well as destroying it physically. [30][www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1c06357d1e.htm]. Another example is when the members of Free Republic, along with other conservative web sites participated in the cyberstalking and physical stalking of Andy Stephenson while he was dying of cancer. Freepers claimed that Andy Stephenson did not have cancer,......
How many of those links link directly to theads on FR? (DU sourcing coming)
NBGPWS 08:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) From the Wiki DU entry
(DU)officially disavowed what they called "kooky tsunami conspiracy theories". They added, "One wonders why the author [of the Times article] did not spend five minutes over at Free Republic and instead write an article about how conservatives think the tsunami was some sort of retribution from God, or how Muslims deserved it." [31] Another example is the conspiracy theories revolving around the August 2006 terror plot to blow up airliners between the UK and the US, which received mention in USA Today. [32] Some posters felt that the American government's push to step-up the announcement of the plot [33] was a conspiracy to bump Joe Lieberman's primary loss out of the news cycle. Others felt that the plot was itself a conspiracy [34] to bolster flagging Republican poll numbers, a sentiment echoed by DNC chairman Howard Dean.
Once again I ask...Why are Protest Warrior members and defenders so reluctant that people might actually READ (or read a description of) what they post on their forums?
NBGPWS 08:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS is in violation of 3RR. The edits in question are [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].
In addition, User:Caelestissurf has popped up out of nowhere and reverted Morton's edit re the Rush section back to the version preferred by NBGPWS. This editor has no edit history, in fact, no other edits at all. Coming when NBGPWS is at 3RR, this is a little suspicious, to say the least.
I'm not sure how to file the relevant reports on the admin pages; the official formatting is pretty confusing. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of wiki code could take that up. Otherwise I will just have to see if I can make sense of them. TheKaplan 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Your assertions are incorrect and I will be looking into the ramifications of implying that I am using a 'sock puppet. I know for sure that it doesn't AGF.
"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. WP:3RR
I think your use of the warning on my discussion page can possibly be considered a violation as well.. Someone complained when I did it. I'll have to check.
How come the Protest Warrior members and defenders are so concerned that people may actually READ what they post on their forums? Threads on DU and FR are linked to from their main Wiki articles. BRING ON THE MEDIATION!
NBGPWS 08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is your own 24 hour edit history on the PW main page, TheKaplan
19:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (removed pov pushing)
18:51, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Motivation - removed
18:46, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (re: criticism, see talk)
18:33, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (pov and grammar)
14:35, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Methodology)
07:41, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations - added cite)
07:40, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:31, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
NBGPWS 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) In response to TheKaplan above: in my opinion, both sides in this dispute are liable for edit warring and inserting POV into the article. I think mediation by a neutral party would be the best way to resolve this. Additionally, using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR is behavior that must be discouraged. If you think that's the case, opening a case at RFCU would be the proper way to go. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You may be embarassed and ashamed, but I don't see an apology like *I* offered to all those I falsly accused! Like my request formal mediation, I WELCOME the investigation into whose 'sock puppet' that is. I wouldn't bother using one.
Vpkoko, please peruse this page, and the archives. My MAIN charge is that the 3 active Protest Warriors, and their defenders have used Wikilawyering EXTENSIVELY and inconsistantly to exclude information that they consider unfavorable, and to INCLUDE info they think favorable.They even talked about it on PW, where they discussed their plans to skew this article to make the organization look good. Would you like me to find that thread and post their discussion here? (by the way, the 'return thing' doesn't make new paragraphs for me, thus the use of >P<. Does it not work on Macs running Safari?)
NBGPWS 19:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User: NBGPWS, you added some some sentences to this section that begin with what I believe are called, " weasel words", to wit, "many people believe..." and "others believe". These are discouraged. Additionally those claims have no supporting citations. You did, however, delete the text, "Many believe Protest Warrior simply serves well to illuminate the true aspects of their leftist opposition. The most common complaint of Protest Warrior detractors is of their use of infiltration; that they "crash" the events of other activists, rather than organize their own events." Doesn't it have as much supporting citations as what you have written and therefore is as equally valid? Lawyer2b 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a section on this PW incident, illuminating the hypocrisy of PW, who insist that they have a right to counterprotest within the ranks of groups they oppose, but deny that same right to others.
"Another counter-demonstrator tried to be clever, by holding up a sign that read “NUKE IRAN.” We politely asked him to take it somewhere else. When he declined, we followed him around, blocking his sign with our American flags, until he eventually gave up and crossed over to the opposite corner " Are we all OK with that? 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggested to rhubarbaby that he replace the missing pic of Alan and Kfir, but he never did. So I did. I'm looking out for you guys! NBGPWS 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
rhurbarbabythewrathbore refused to address my concerns - I trust you (neverborn) will have more intestinal fortitude.
1) When is the last time Alan or Kfir particpiated in a PW counterprotest? Will they be counterprotesting Cindy Sheehan in Crawford? They're only 100 miles away. If not, why would the leaders of such an 'important' counterprotest organization fail to capitalize on such a significant opportunity?
2) Why is the gallery section of the PW site no longer being updated with official galleries? Why are PW videos posted to youtube, but not to the PW 'video page'? Why is it no longer being updated?
3) It definately appears that Alan and Kifer are no longer actively involved in any manner of political discussion on the various PW fora. Please point me to any recent threads where either of them discussed politics. Please point me to any posts discussing politics by either them in the last YEAR.
3b) It also appears that they are no longer actively counterprotesting either. I see no couterprotest activity from Kifer since he was attacked by the Freepers in Crawford a YEAR ago, and even longer for Alan. Please provide documentation otherwise.
4) What happened to 'Operation Butterfly'? What was 'Operation Butterfly'?
5) Please address the obvious discrepancies in these statements and estimate the current number of PW's who actively counterprotest in real life in the streets:
"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005
Thanks NBGPWS 07:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005
(by the way only 13 PW's showed (less than 50% estimated) up in DC, as documented by the Washington Post) NBGPWS 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Face the facts. Kifer and Alan have abandonded PW, and the once-mightly S.S. Protest Warrior is floundering like a rudderless, captainless 'ghost ship' which is about to sink! Take the helm and save it WB! NBGPWS 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
RUTHFULBARBARITY..
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final Warning
DO NOT DELETE
FINAL WARNING to Ruthfulbarbarity
Don't you EVER delete what I write again!
I WILL be lodging an official Wiki Complaint against you and I am reposting what you, Ruthfulbarbarity, in blatant disregard for Wiki rules, policies and standards, and in a despicable act of criminal vandalism, deleted!
DO NOT DELETE OR YOU WILL BE BANNED
NBGPWS 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I added 2 links on the interview Kifer gave to the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
VERY TELLING!
NBGPWS 10:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Added 2 more links to the man and organization Kifer gave the interview to.
NBGPWS 10:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 11:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 18:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing vandalism, insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on multiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.
NBGPWS
18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why you deleted a VERBATIM PW quote and the link I added. Are you arguing that because the Protest Warrior's writing style is bad, that he shouldn't be quoted??? It's not Wiki's problem that the PW is "unintelligible' as you claim, nor should it be paraphrased or corrected. It's a QUOTE, and described a critical PW tactic, and I added it back in.
In the future, please use this discussion page BEFORE you delete or change something.
Thanks!
NBGPWS 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with user Damburger on adding a link under 'islamophobia'. The following quote comes directly from Kifer and Alan:
Is everybody OK with that?
NBGPWS 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source that says that quote is islamophobic? -- Tbeatty 06:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I also added Hate Groups. Their opposition to, and statements against Islam make them fall under that Wiki classification as well.
"A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or other sector of society.'
NBGPWS 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comments would make a great blog entry or your own research paper and some people may even find them to be true. Wikipedia, however, requires a number of things before you can publish it here. The first is that it has been previously published in a reliable source. Find an article in the New York Times that they are Islamophobic. Second, Wikipedia requirese WP:verifiability. A year from now, you may not be around to use your logic to prove they are Islamophobes. Therefore, the claim must be verifiable and cited. Third, Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research. Your synthesis of "islamophobe" from the Wikipeida defintion of islamaphobe and a statement by PW is expressly forbidden. This is directly from the WP:OR page of no-nos. "A is true, B is true, therefore C is true" can only be included if C has been published previously. "Self-evident" doesn't count. It must come from a Reliable Source. None of these are negotiable points. I encourage you to request arbitration. I am firmly rooted in the facts and policy of Wikipedia and by your own admission your inclusion of these items is based on data that is simply not allowed to be published here.-- Tbeatty 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_36.gif
I need only reference the founder's own words and this official PW sign to prove Islamophobia and 'hate group'. Please request arbitration. If you contend content from PW can't be used, the paragraph from Kifer responding to the article about PW anti-abortion protests MUST be removed, along with ALL other quotes directly from PW, yes? I am deleting that paragraph now.
NBGPWS 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've got a problems with both pieces of evidence being used to argue for the inclusion of these terms:
Tbeatty - quit vandalizing the article. The massive decline in traffic on the PW website is significant. This has already been discussed. Next time you plan to vandalize the article, discuss your proposed vandalism here first.
Thanks
NBGPWS 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Lipton redirects here. Kfir is under discussion. The article is substantially about these guys. Therefore this qualifies as WP:BIO rules.-- Tbeatty 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
tbeatty - quit vandalizing the article. The massive decline in traffic on the PW website is significant. This has already been discussed. Next time you plan to vandalize the article, discuss your proposed vandalism here first.
Thanks
NBGPWS 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not vandalism. Please WP:AGF The Alexa website makes none of the claims that were cited. What you are doing is Original Research and synthesis of positions. Sorry. It just doesn't belong here.-- Tbeatty 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Please AGF. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is considered a personal attack to accuse editors of vandalism when edits are made in good faith.-- Tbeatty 05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of these words here seems odd to me in light of the fact these people are protest in support of the state. Perhaps saying they oppose statism should be included in a quote from the organisations own statements? Damburger 09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The links accusing them of CIA funding should go in the criticism section (although be sure that its clear that this isn't proven). As for 'statism' - the fact that we disagree about it would suggest that the definition is hardly clear, and there isn't a consensus. Thus the sensible thing is to allow the Protest Warriors to explain their position in their own words and have a quote. Damburger 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I added 'rocnrev' back into criticisms. There's lots of DOCUMENTED info there, including screenshots, that is available nowhere else.
NBGPWS 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Coming Additions
You'll note that Wiki articles on political forums often link to controversial and significant threads themselves, or note their content, ergo DU with 'tsunami theories', and the following section on Free Republic. I will use this content on FR as inspiration. I'm compiling a 'best of PW threads' section now!
"Allegations Of extremism and bigotry
Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives. The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings, yet epithets such as "faggot" or "raghead" are fairly common, and are not grounds for a post to be removed.
Free Republic is often accused of being extremist and far-right (even popular conservative talk show host Sean Hannity has described the site as "fringe" [14]), and has been criticized for harboring "hate speech" regarding certain groups of people, such as homosexuals, Arabs, Muslims, Han Chinese[citation needed] and illegal immigrants. An example the site's alleged extremism and bigotry can be found in 2005, when a forum poster circulated a petition asking the Iranian government not to execute two homosexual teenagers, but was rebuked by forum users for his position (some of the users supported the execution, for various reasons, including allegations that the teenagers were being executed for sexual assault on a minor, as opposed to simply being homosexual).[15] Some members have also expressed support for Apartheid South Africa [16]. Many members also strongly supported Tom Tancredo's statement that the United States should "nuke" Mecca in retalation for a further terrorist attack on American soil.[17] Many Free Republic users attribute these accusations to political correctness and deny that they have any basis in fact."
NBGPWS 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I think there might be some debate on this issue I thought it deserved its own section.
If it is easily verifiable, just stating a fact like, "There have been no videos posted to the Protest Warrior website since 2004" does not strike me as original research because there really seems to be no conclusion; it's just a statement of fact. I think the sentence can be included in the article. Opinions? Lawyer2b 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Verfiable. Notable. Sourced reliably. Those are the minimum requirements. I don't think it meets the WP:RS. Video's may have been posted and deleted. Videos may not be in the location that was looked. etc, etc. Using the website as a primary source to derive facts is the definition of Original Research. The website as a list of videos and that can be sourced. Reading that list and making a claim about it is original research. It's a slippery slope. It may seem that this Original Research is harmless but it won't end there. If that minutiae of detail was so notable, a reputable source would have published it. -- Tbeatty 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I repeat....
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 09:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am only interested in insuring that a reader who might not be familiar with Protest Warrior gets an accurate picture of it - an 'activist' organization that is home to under 100 'activists' - with founders who are no longer active in the organization they founded but have now abandoned - with a documented history of violence, bigotry, racism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. The repeated efforts of the PW defenders to delete anything that gives an accurate portrayal of PW is unconscionable. For instance, Wiki articles on Free Republic, and Democratic Underground, 2 organizations that are infinitely more important then PW, and much more closely scrutinized on Wiki have sections for critical dissenting views, links to notable, controversial threads, and openly talk about those sites' popularity on the web. Whenever I include similar info, it is removed by Protest Warriors and their defenders. I WELCOME arbitration or whatever they call it. BRING IT ON!
NBGPWS 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
First off, they both violate WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means RockNRev's "PWNED!" site is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site or the Scott and Jerry ARA site back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. -- Neverborn 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The report was from 'Central Texas Racist Action' a part of the well established Anti Racist Action Network.
Please see:
They likely have many more active members than Protest Warrior, and are undeniably much more active than Protest Warrior when it comes to counterprotesting.
It's going back in.
I am seeking guidance to see if PW can be classified as 'dead', 'dormant' or 'no longer active' as the founders have not counterprotested in over a year nor communicated with their members regarding their status.
NBGPWS 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It violates WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means the blog in your ARA edit is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site, the Scott and Jerry ARA site, or the blog back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. -- Neverborn 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"it started with clorox's (ELAC) (real name Brett Chance) politics. He comes from a Roman Catholic, Republican family, and while he considers himself technically an independent, during the 2004 election he was strongly pro- Bush. He joined an organization called ProtestWarrior.com, an organization that poked fun at and disrupted liberal protestors during the campaign. Then someone hacked the ProtestWarrior.com website and posted personal information about its members?including clorox?on Indymedia websites. Clorox says it took the Indymedia sites weeks to remove the hacked information, despite multiple requests. On the other hand, says clorox, Indymedia sites would eliminate any pro-Bush articles he posted on their sites almost immediately.
"They claim to be a free speech outlet, but they're not," says clorox. "So that's the time when my skills in hacking and political ideology merged, and I was ready to take it to the next level."
Clorox gathered similar-minded hackers around him and created rightwingextremist.org, dedicated to combating left-wing hackers over the Internet. It was a combination of politics and hacking, one so-called "hacktivist" group against another. Eventually clorox discovered a weakness in Indymedia's website programming that allowed him to install a hack that redirected Indymedia visitors to websites of his choosing, like rightwingextremist.org and other pro-Bush sites."
Shouldn't this be referenced in the article? ELAC clorox Protest Warrior busted for hacking
Should I add it in?
NBGPWS 08:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 Protest Warrior
NBGPWS 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the above mediation is currently officially limited to edits in the actual article, I have created this separate section. At some future time, if the mediation case is amended to include User:NBGPWS' behavior on the talk page, we can merge the two. Lawyer2b 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lawyer2b 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My input is that there continues to be an attempt to add almost exlusively negative information that is 1) not reliably sourced or verfiable 2) not neutrally presented and 3) not relevant. Wikipeida is not a blog. I would like to see NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) expand his contributions beyond this article so that he can learn more about what Wikipedia is and is not. -- Tbeatty 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has "exhausted the communities patience." Please weigh in here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NBGPWS. -- Tbeatty 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, why did you delete this info after you yourself, modified it to 'claims to monitor'? Please document your claim that either Scott or Jerry were arrested for assault and plead guilty to disorderly conduct. This is a very serious, and potentially slanderous or libelous charge you're making.
"Protest Warrior is on a 'watch list' of Centex Anti Racist Action, a watchdog group which claims to monitor racist and hate groups in the Southwest. [26] [27] who liken the organization to Brown shirts (a label which, as the article mentions, the Protest Warriors have applied to leftists) [28]. The same article also accused the forum on the website of hosting White supremacist views. The author of these criticisms was recently arrested for various assaults related to his protesting. He plead guilty to a 'disorderly conduct' ."
Thanks.
NBGPWS 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To Tbeatty:
Not to be insulting, but If you can't tell 'jason' from 'jerry' then you don't have the intellectual capacity to be participating on Wiki. The fact that you added SUCH slanderous libelous derogatory info- accusing the author of being arrested and pleading guilty to a crime - without double checking your info is VERY troubling too. No offense, but I am going to ask that you be banned from editing this article (and the DU article which you keep vandalizing too). Sorry
NBGPWS 23:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I included the number of active Protest Warriors - those expected to take part in a nationwide PW counterprotest - PW's reason for existance. The info came from a PW Chapter leader. Someone deleted it. Why? I am concerned that people get a realistic idea of PW's size:
Note the discrepansies
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." (frontpagemag.com 2004)
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it" (national PW couterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA) ethanmx2 (PW Chapter leader) Aug 5, 2005 (13 actually showed up in DC - less than half expected)
Isn't the SIZE of PW important? How can this be addressed?
NBGPWS 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity: By the way - I looked through the archives and I couldn't find where the hacking by Protest Warrior Brett Chance (ELAC) was discussed and issue settled. Could you please point me to it? Thanks NBGPWS 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ruthful, that the article doesn't say anything about the size of the organization. It sounds like you want to make a case, by including a documented list of Protest Warrior activities, that the size of the organization is less than advertised. You may or may not be right, but this is, again, original research. If you want the article to include statements about the size of the Protest Warrior organization, I think you need to find verifiable sources that actually address that topic. Am I misundertanding what you want to do? Lawyer2b 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B wrote:
" It sounds like you want to make a case, by including a documented list of Protest Warrior activities, that the size of the organization is less than advertised. "
HUH??? What size is PW 'advertised' to be? What size do you estimate PW to be?
Don't you think it's important that a reader has an idea of the size of any activist organization? Is an organization with tens of thousands of active members different than one with a few dozen? NBGPWS 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
To point out, Hail to the Chief wasn't just in DC. South Florida actually had a stronger showing than the DC chapter; I have their video on my computer. Unfortunately, their web site seems to be down at the moment. Rogue 9 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a section on past campaigns, Please add your documented verifiable and reliable info on 'official' PW campaigns to this new section. I'll add a few tonight. RB, NB or R9, what was the official PW name of the operation referred to as the 'crawford incident'? Thanks ( can someone make an archive? I don't know how. Thanks)
NBGPWS 00:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Note to Lawyer2B.... I see you addressed Ruthfulbarbarity as 'ruthful'. Some friendly advice... He's VERY touchy about people not using his full handle, or 'RB', which he said was OK! I urge caution lest he smite you!
NBGPWS 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am being perfectly civil and don't need your advice, thank you. You have way more admonitions from Wiki gurus like Kuzaar for YOUR behavior than I do for mine, so I respectfully suggest that you 'put a cork in it', RB
NBGPWS 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am pefectly composed. I respectfully suggest that your time might be better spent adding to the article rather than foisting your unsolicited and unneeded advice upon me, my good sir. Might you write a section on Protest Warrior Brett Chance's hacking of Indymedia for our consideration? NBGPWS 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Need I remind you once again of your own conduct?
"you hyperactive, dim chimpanzee. "Ruthfulbarbarity 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparing me to Bush was a LOW BLOW!
NBGPWS 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I seek only to improve the quality of the article, and considering the large amount of content which was written or edited by me, content that has stood up to the challenges of at least 3 active Protest Warriors (who many feel shouldn't be editing an article on an organization in which they are members of anyway) my contributions have been of critical importance, if I do say so myself! I hope, despite your animosity towards me, that you will agree, my good sir. NBGPWS 07:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 07:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) TheKaplan;
I can't find any appropriate Wiki-approved sources that documented 'Operation Miltary Shield". Where did you get your info? Thanks NBGPWS 07:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we De-Weasel this article. "generally characterized as pro bush" is totally unacceptable without documentation.
NBGPWS 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) RB - just to clear a couple things up...
1) YOU were also banned from Protest Warrior, before you came crawling back.
2) NBG was NOT banned from PW. 'Jeff Gannon' was, obstensibly for posting 'pornography' a montage of Jeff Gannon pics that showed no genetalia or even his ass. This photo was so innacuous that it could be shown on network TV during prime time.
3) I ask that you address me ONLY as NBGPWS
NBGPWS 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "centex watchlist" bit of the criticism re WP:V as pointed out above, and replaced it with a more general criticism section that is supported by the existing sources. The section, obviously, needs to be expanded; this was just a start. Happy editing, TheKaplan 18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been deemed in violation of WP:V
Who keeps removing 'admitted dug addict' Rush Limbuagh? It's proven fact. Warning - The next time it's deleted the offending party will be charged with vandalism.
NBGPWS 22:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 04:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies!
I offer my sincere apologies to those editors I wrongly accused of vandalism. I am pretty new, and was repeatedly accused of vandalism by some of the editors who have been working on this article over what were merely content disputes, so I had an incorrect idea of what vandalism was. I will strive to be more circumspect in my accusations. I ask that user Jossi take an active role in editing this article to ensure balance.
NBGPWS 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean balance in the editing process. There are 3 active Protest Warriors and 4 supporters who I contend use WP in an inconsistant manner to exclude much valid criticism and other info which they consider unfavorable to Protest Warrior. That is exactly WHY - *I* asked for FORMAL MEDIATION. Do I need to reference the thread on Protest Warrior asking members to skew this article to make sure PW is viewed in a positive light? I don't want to waste any more discussing this, my good sir. I also kindly ask that you refrain from accusing ME of vandalism which I gather is verboten per WP. "The only individual who's been vandalizing this article-repeatedly-is you." Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) As civil-rights icon Rodney King once pleaded "can't we just all get along?"
NBGPWS 04:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Added back in Notable Posts
Wiki articles on Free Republic, and Democratic Underground, 2 organizations that are infinitely more important and popular than PW (according to Alexa rankings), and much more closely scrutinized by their supporters here on Wiki have sections with links to notable, even controversial threads - threads that are not mentioned on third party sites.
Info like this needs to be in the PW article, so I added it. Why are the PW forum members and supporters so reluctant to have their own words published?
NBGPWS 07:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
From the Wiki Free Republic entry
The Free Republic’s members have been known to have been involved in vandalism against websites they perceive to be liberal, with administrators often calling for a coordinated [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535547/posts] vandalism against information websites they perceived to have a liberal bias, primarily related to major racial and political topics. Several administrators have actively endorsed plan’s for these attacks and have gone as far as providing tips on how to evade detection.
Allegations of extremism ===
Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives.
-cyberstalking-
One case involved the owner of a restaurant who notified authorities when an underage Jenna Bush attempted to illegally purchase liquor at the establishment. The owner's name, residential address, date of birth, drivers license and registration information, physical description, and information about her infant child was posted on the Free Republic forums by users. Forum users then advocated violence toward the restaurant's patrons, as well as destroying it physically. [30][www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1c06357d1e.htm]. Another example is when the members of Free Republic, along with other conservative web sites participated in the cyberstalking and physical stalking of Andy Stephenson while he was dying of cancer. Freepers claimed that Andy Stephenson did not have cancer,......
How many of those links link directly to theads on FR? (DU sourcing coming)
NBGPWS 08:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) From the Wiki DU entry
(DU)officially disavowed what they called "kooky tsunami conspiracy theories". They added, "One wonders why the author [of the Times article] did not spend five minutes over at Free Republic and instead write an article about how conservatives think the tsunami was some sort of retribution from God, or how Muslims deserved it." [31] Another example is the conspiracy theories revolving around the August 2006 terror plot to blow up airliners between the UK and the US, which received mention in USA Today. [32] Some posters felt that the American government's push to step-up the announcement of the plot [33] was a conspiracy to bump Joe Lieberman's primary loss out of the news cycle. Others felt that the plot was itself a conspiracy [34] to bolster flagging Republican poll numbers, a sentiment echoed by DNC chairman Howard Dean.
Once again I ask...Why are Protest Warrior members and defenders so reluctant that people might actually READ (or read a description of) what they post on their forums?
NBGPWS 08:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS is in violation of 3RR. The edits in question are [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].
In addition, User:Caelestissurf has popped up out of nowhere and reverted Morton's edit re the Rush section back to the version preferred by NBGPWS. This editor has no edit history, in fact, no other edits at all. Coming when NBGPWS is at 3RR, this is a little suspicious, to say the least.
I'm not sure how to file the relevant reports on the admin pages; the official formatting is pretty confusing. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of wiki code could take that up. Otherwise I will just have to see if I can make sense of them. TheKaplan 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Your assertions are incorrect and I will be looking into the ramifications of implying that I am using a 'sock puppet. I know for sure that it doesn't AGF.
"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. WP:3RR
I think your use of the warning on my discussion page can possibly be considered a violation as well.. Someone complained when I did it. I'll have to check.
How come the Protest Warrior members and defenders are so concerned that people may actually READ what they post on their forums? Threads on DU and FR are linked to from their main Wiki articles. BRING ON THE MEDIATION!
NBGPWS 08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is your own 24 hour edit history on the PW main page, TheKaplan
19:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (removed pov pushing)
18:51, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Motivation - removed
18:46, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (re: criticism, see talk)
18:33, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (pov and grammar)
14:35, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Methodology)
07:41, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations - added cite)
07:40, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:31, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
NBGPWS 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) In response to TheKaplan above: in my opinion, both sides in this dispute are liable for edit warring and inserting POV into the article. I think mediation by a neutral party would be the best way to resolve this. Additionally, using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR is behavior that must be discouraged. If you think that's the case, opening a case at RFCU would be the proper way to go. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You may be embarassed and ashamed, but I don't see an apology like *I* offered to all those I falsly accused! Like my request formal mediation, I WELCOME the investigation into whose 'sock puppet' that is. I wouldn't bother using one.
Vpkoko, please peruse this page, and the archives. My MAIN charge is that the 3 active Protest Warriors, and their defenders have used Wikilawyering EXTENSIVELY and inconsistantly to exclude information that they consider unfavorable, and to INCLUDE info they think favorable.They even talked about it on PW, where they discussed their plans to skew this article to make the organization look good. Would you like me to find that thread and post their discussion here? (by the way, the 'return thing' doesn't make new paragraphs for me, thus the use of >P<. Does it not work on Macs running Safari?)
NBGPWS 19:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)