This is an archive of past discussions about Protest Warrior. 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.
Hi, I'm here to try and help mediate the various disputes in occurance surrounding this article. If no one has any objections, I suggest we keep discussion here for the moment. There have been a lot of civility issues with users here, so I'd like to request that for the duration of this mediation topics above this point in the page are left in their current state and that we conduct communication here. Additionally, I would like to gently reinforce the need for observance of the guidelines on civility here. Because it appears that a lot of circular discussions have formed, I'd also ask that you allow me to guide what we speak of, but please understand that I have no special authority and am only trying to suggest a way to make progress. Specifically, it'd be nice if specific inflammatory remarks could be left for now until an appropriate point in the mediation when they will be more helpful. So, does what I am saying sound reasonable to you? Are we ready to proceed? I'm ready to hear opinions on this now, and I'm sorry for the late response to the posting of your case. Thank you. —Xyrael / 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! This is the user who requested mediation - and this user must say that your arrival is as welcome as manna from heaven! Any civility issues from this user are a thing of the past, as this user has seen the error of his ways, repented, and turned over a new leaf. This user encourages user Xyrael to peruse the archives of discussion talk, starting from Archive one, to get a grasp of what has been happening here - over and over - since day one. (this user is going to drop the 'this user' bit now ;-) NBGPWS18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I welcome Xyrael to the page as a mediator. As a person who both experienced and documented User:NBGPWS past behavior I must state that so far it does appear he has "turned over a new leaf" and I think it should be acknowledged. He appears to be arguing about policy and trying to reach consensus civilly as opposed to trolling and making personal attacks. Regarding his charge that negative material regarding the Protest Warrior is being kept out of the article by unfairly applying wikipedia policies, however, I disagree. People make mistakes and sometimes material is included that is later pointed out to be a policy violation. That doesn't mean it was intentional nor that other material, similarly in violation, should be added "to balance" it. I think User:NBGPWS saw material in the article that was sympathetic to the organization that violated policy and did not assume good faith. His response was to simply try to add negative material. Of the criticisms that User:NBGPWS wanted to add, all were from sources that were not allowed under Wikipedia policy and other negative statements he wished to include were also original research. Both were met with resistance. I think he got frustrated and his incivility and personal attacks increased. However, whenever he's focused on pointing out material in the article he thinks violates policies (and I think he's been correct a couple of times) I think he's had success in seeing the article changed. What he has not had success with (nor should not, in my opinion) is the addition of negative material that is clearly in violation of policy. Lawyer2b20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree.
As I stated earlier a good compromise might be the addition of a "pro & con" subsection underneath the main set of external links.
In other words, making it explicitly clear that the reason the groups NBG wants included are linked to is because they are vociferous critics of Protest Warrior, not implying that they have any particular expertise or insight into Protest Warrior as an organization.
This is the way that other controversial organizations and/or public figures have been handled in the past under some circumstances.
L2B, I disagree with your interpretations of both my actions and my motives, but since both of us are partisan parties to this debate, i'll repost the conclusions that a DIS-interested, nonpartisan Wiki admin. insightfully reached less than a week ago:
...it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No one is trying to "sweep" anything "under the rug."
We have already made explicitly clear-on numerous occasions-that if you can find notable criticism from reliable sources that we will be the first to insist upon its inclusion in this article.
I even made the suggestion that if such material can't be found-and the fact that we are still discussing this subject suggests that it can not-that a subcategory of external links-both critical and supportive in nature-which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines be included.
I also request-yet again-that you spell-check your comments before posting them.
No-can-do with the spill-chuck request, RB. I olny use speel-chick on the atricles, knot talk, Sorrys!NBGPWS01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Without implying this matter can be settled simply from previous statments, I believe User:NBGPWS neglected to include a later quote from Kuzaar upon his becoming better informed of the nature of a source of criticism he wished to include, to wit, "You see, now, I had no idea that Indymedia accepted submissions from any users. In that case to formulate a criticism section will indeed take more reliable sources than have been previously provided. (emphasis mine) I had originally glanced at the Indymedia frontpage to make a snap assessment of it, it turns out it looked more professional than it was. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC). Lawyer2b23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What Kuzaar noted IS still happening - with users like Morton D's edits - and Tbeatty's deletion of the Alexa data (without ONE word in the edit summary) important factual info which Kuzaar and Vpoko said IS fact, NOT OR, NPOV, and CAN be included. (now added back in) Let's allow Xyrael to do his job, OK? Thanks NBGPWS01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely will allow Xyrael to do his job. I'm unclear, however. Do you think that discussing the issue will interfere with his mediation? Perhaps I have a false picture of what the mediaton process is supposed to look like, but there is a "discussion" section on the mediation page that actually encourages discussing the matter on the talk page so I think it is appropriate to discuss the issue as we are. Lawyer2b02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, like the good lawyer you are (or will be) I think that you tried to 'argue your case' in an 'opening statement' rather than let the mediator 'examine the evidence'.
Thank you for the compliment and that is exactly what I did; although I wouldn't say I did it rather than let the mediator examine the evidence but in addition to. Lawyer2b12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Further mediation is pointless if one of the parties to the discussion, namely, NBGPWS, refuses to abide by the conclusions reached by any arbitration panel or mediator chosen.
He has already stated-on repeated occasions-that he refuses to abide by the decisions of administrators, or agree to decisions reached by consensus.
In other words, he will disobey any and all Wikipedia guidelines because it suits his agenda.
In that case, I don't see what there is to "mediate" or to discuss.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption.
I'm not the one - user RB is - who both defended another editor ignoring an Admin's ruling on WP, (op Military Shield) but then also falsely stated that my contributions on another issue (Alexa stats) violated WP POV when the same Admin, and the ONLY disinterested nonpartisan editor who cares about this article (Vpoko) had just ruled that they hadn't! I will abide by any Admin or Mediator rulings.
I don't think this is working because again the same discussion is occuring round and round in ever deepening circles. I do however want to hear a statement from all three of you on this case, with: 1) what's the problem 2) what you want to change 3) what you want the other party to do 4) any suggestions. I'd appreciate it if these wern't discussed as I'm concerned people are (unintentionally) breaking civility policies. I must impress again that I have no authority, and am only suggesting a way forward that I think will work. Thank you. —Xyrael / 12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
My comments coming a little later - I have to work today. (being a freelancer is nice as I can work my own hours)
Two new categories be created beneath the "external links" section.
One grouping will link to supportive articles/blog postings, e.g. Michelle Malkin, Brian Maloney, among others, while the other will have critical material culled from Indymedia, ARA, SDS, The War Resister's League, etc...
Above those two sets of links we place a template indicating that none of them are from reliable sources, or that the validity of their claims are subject to dispute.
That's a start but it is not THE solution to the ongoing problems that this entry has faced since day one. You might want to read the very first page in the archives.
I'm not going to scrutinize every single archived discussion of this topic, regardless of how many times you suggest doing so.
I've already read-and participated in-many of them, and most of the "ongoing problems" are-at this point-a direct result of your behavior.
Nothing better illustrates this than the discussion that took place in your absence, which was characterized chiefly by comity and consensus-seeking rather than rancorous debate over tangential subjects, which bore no relation to the article in question.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption.
"You cannot delete whole paragraphs about Protest Warrior's activities crashing protests. You can't delete links to their critics. Reverted." Rhobite 03:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
"They (Protest Warriors) will always do abusing any public website for propaganda reasons. Thats what they always do." Oct 10, 2004
"The current edit is sheer propaganda for the Protest Warrior group. Troll edits of the article by Protest Warrior members are abusing Wikipedia for extremist propaganda" Oct 10, 2004
Namely, the fact that the content of this discussion has shifted from genuine debate over what should and should not be included in the Protest Warrior article to debate over behavior, mediation, warnings-in other words everything unrelated to the article itself-in large measure because of your actions.
If you want to start making positive contributions to this debate, and cease imputing malign motives to other editors, cease invoking unconstructive mediation processes in order to address issues on which consensus already exists, then I have no objection to your continued presence.
The links to critics of Protest Warrior must meet Wikipedia guidelines.
This has been repeated over and over again, ad nauseam.
If you can find an article that meets the criteria set forth by Wikipedia, i.e. from a reliable source, then I suggest you do so.
It would be a much more productive use of time-in my opinion-than complaining about the fact that sources that do not meet Wikipedia guidelines were excluded.
Regarding what actually happened during the 2 days I was blocked - this is what I wrote to L2B:
"You PW's and supporters spent the (majority of the) 2 days while I was blocked discussing your rational of how you would get the (tangental to the article) Hammond warrant included again. Guess what? Except to you PW's, who consider this your 'watergate' or 'killian memos' moment, this info MATTERS NOT to the average Wiki reader wanting to find out more about PW. It's an issue of MINOR importance - except to you guys. Such is the myopia of 'group think'. There are 3 major articles on the 'crawford incident', fox, SF Chron, and a CBS news page to be found in the first 50 Google results of 'protest warrior' + crawford. You would have found them IF you had looked. I guess no one did, or did and decided not to include this info...." (criticism deleted in the spririt of harmony)
If you are concerned about creating a less stressful environment then the best thing you could do is to bring your behavior into compliance with Wikipedia's civility guidelines.
In an effort to be more helpful and bipartisan, I added this description of Op Liberty Rising. Why don't you guys linkify it, and pick which MSM account of it you would like to link to it? (IMHO, it should be one from after, not before, and not as partisan as 'front page mag'. There is a whole Wiki article on the 04 RNC protests, where PW is mentioned too. Feel free to rewrite it. Since I wrote the first section this one might sound too similar.
"During the 2004 Republican National Convention, Protest Warrior staged "Operation Liberty Rising" in opposition to those protesting the RNC. This event received attention from the Main Stream Media both before and after it occured."
"Why don't you guys linkify it, and pick which MSM account of it you would like to link to it? (IMHO, it should be one from after, not before, and not as partisan as 'front page mag'. "[1][2][3] There are more too. [4]
I'm trying to help you out and you still want to argue! LOL! READ all the accounts. MTV is by FAR the best, as far as WP - as it has names, and ages, AND hometowns of several PW's which lends tons of credibility, and the reporter actually describes what he witnessed. Did you actually READ the content at the links I listed??????? NBGPWS08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not helping me at all if you are not improving wikipedia. Truth and Content are irrelevant if it doesn't pass WP:RS and WP:Verifiability.--Tbeatty08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
HUH ???? Are you arguing this account violates RS + V? That it is NOT the most appropriate of the 4 I listed? Once again I ask, did you READ it - and the others?
MTV account of Op Liberty Rising
I think the addition is excellent, User:NBGPWS and I don't think anyone can argue that either Newsweek or MTV don't qualify under policy. Well done! :-) Lawyer2b13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you counselor! I was a little suprised myself, that the best coverage, indeed the only article that covered the '5 W's' extensively was the one from MTV. I'll add the "crawford incident' back in, using the last wording, but substituting an acceptable source.
Whether or not MTV is responsible for the "best coverage" of events staged by Protest Warrior is arguable-the coverage by The New York Times, MSNBC, Human Events, The Washington Post, among other media outlets, was pretty comprehensive, IMO-although not very relevant to this discussion.
Insofar as it meets the guidelines set forth above it is acceptable.
Question about Alan Lipton née Davidson ('née' improperly and incorrectly edited from correct 'né' without permission by Ruthfulbarbarity)
Did Alan legally change his name from Davidson to Lipton? Any of you PWers know why he changed his name? (I guess that doesn't matter as long as he legally changed it) If he did not legally change it, should he be referred to as Lipton, Davidson or Lipton née Davidson? ('née' improperly and incorrectly edited from correct 'né' without permission by Ruthfulbarbarity - who, thus far, refuses to edit it back) (By the way, neither Alan nor Kfir have shown up here after an invitation was extended to them a couple weeks ago to attest that they're still actively 'leading' Protest Warrior)
It's noteworthy. Someone starts an organization using one last name -and a year later adopts another last name. WHY?
There are a lot more hot lefty protestors - much hotter than her. There should be some protests in your area this weekend. I'm going to 2 in L.A. - on Saturday and Monday. (ANSWER vs Save our State - might get dicey!) Go to one and wear one of those Che shirts while carrying a bUSH=HITLER sign - you might get lucky! :-)
Secondly, that phrase is only used to refer to a married woman's maiden name, and since Alan is male it wouldn't apply to him even if his birth name was not "Lipton."
Finally, what precisely is the point, if one exists, of your irrelevant, meandering tangent?
I can see the egg dripping down RB's face from here. He shouldn't feel too bad. I was wrong about 'pore' vs 'pour'.
Nee is from French (where it is spelled née), and it is the feminine form of né, the past participle of naître 'to be born', eventually from Latin natus, the source of English native. It is first found in English sources in the mid eighteenth century.
In actual usage, nee does not mean simply 'born', but something like 'formerly called'. One sees it in all sorts of extended senses--introducing the original name of a person using a pseudonym, even introducing an original name of anything (e.g. "the Acura SLX (nee Isuzu Trooper)" (New York Times, 1996)).
Along these lines, recent years have seen the introduction of the masculine form né in English, used similarly but of men: "NWA's main man is Easy-E (né Eric Wright), considered the Pavarotti of the rap world" (Daily Telegraph, 1990).
NOW.
I should note that you may 'know a lot of big words' - but certainly not all the small words - specifically two-letter words - precisely..... 'né' - LOL ! PWN3D ! ROFLMAO !
"PWN3D!" while insulting the intelligence of other posters is not only inappropriate for Wikipedia, but a violation of WP. Seeing as you have been blocked for violation of this WP before, I feel that this template is appropriate.
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.
This entire tangent of yours is immaterial to the discussion.
Unless your goal is to make this page an overlong morass of petty dickering over inconsequential issues and meaningless arguments, in which case you are succeeding beyond your wildest expectations.
NBGPWS, you have been warned to not accuse others of vandalism due to content disputes, and to stop using warning templates when they are inappropriate.
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.
NB, when he edits MY text, titles, and comments, and then is informed that his edits were 100% wrong, and is provided PROOF [5] and then REFUSES to correct the incorrect and improper edits he made to MY text - that constitutes vandalism. (maybe)
Note to user Ruthfulbarbarity (né Wrathbone). If you care to make corrections to my edits and revert them to my original correct 'né' spelling you may due so, and remove my notation of your improper edits.
LOL !I would have appreciated it if you had reversed the improper and incorrect edits you made to my spelling after you were asked to also, Ruthfulbarbarity né Wrathbone ! Ain't life a bitch?! As you don't edit other people's spelling on Protest Warrior or even here, your actions and motives are puzzling to say the least - That is unless you are deliberately trying to provoke me, in which case they're perfectly coherent.
Secondly, the reason I edit your spelling and punctuation so frequently is because you make more grammatical and syntactical errors than almost every one here...combined.
In that one comment you made three major errors alone.
The content (and credibility) of your flimsy excuses has gone from simply weak to thoroughly preposterous. You were dead-wrong when you corrected né to née, but your actions after the fact, and lack of action, speak much louder than your errors with language. The fact that you have obsessively-compulsively focused on and edited MY words on this informal discussion page - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this error has been OBVIOUS for DAYS, says it ALL. "Very few major news organizations have ran stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."
There's nothing preventing you from reverting my edits, if you feel that I have erred.
And I have edited the Protest Warrior article.
The fact that I haven't made wholesale changes and alterations-prior to discussing them on this talk page-doesn't imply that I haven't contributed to shaping this article in a positive direction.
There is nothing "obsessive" or "compulsive" about my edits, your accusations notwithstanding.
And there are several large, national and regional news organizations that have run articles, feature stories, and photographs about Protest Warrior, and/or profiles of its founders and/or members.
MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Times, Time Magazine, The New York Post, The Austin-American Statesmen, and The Washington Post to name just a few.
National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Human Events, Frontpagemag.com, Brain-Terminal.com, have all interviewed members of Protest Warrior, published articles written by members of Protest Warrior, described events co-sponsored or staged by Protest Warrior, or alluded to Protest Warrior at least once, and in most cases several times.
That is just a partial listing.
If you want me to continue I'd be more than happy to oblige.
'The fact that you have obsessively-compulsively focused on and edited MY words on this informal discussion page - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL(added for RB) error has been OBVIOUS for DAYS, says it ALL. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."'
"Most people make the same errors repeatedly, because they don't seem like errors to those making them. If your family says, "our dogs have ran away on several occasions," that's what you will say unless you (a) learn it's wrong and (b) break the habit. I can tell you it's wrong, but only you can break the habit. The best way I know to extinguish habitual writing errors is to write them down. Make a "to do" list of habitual errors. An entry might look like this: run--ran--have run (NOT have ran)."
Present Tense = Run / Past Tense = Ran / Past Participle = (Have) Run / Incorrect Usage = (Have) Ran
Are you following me, Skippy? If not - see here Grammar Errors
Rudimentary grammar - but as you said... "not that you would actually know that" - or notice - as you are too busy obsessively-compulsively editing MY spelling HERE!
The only thing that I've gleaned from this not very productive discussion is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Protest Warrior has garnered numerous profiles, mentions, and articles in major media outlets-print, radio, cable news, etc.-the most recent being a credit in a National Review column published less than two months ago.
Maybe you can get L2B to explain it to you. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you constantly correcting my spelling and grammar, but ingoring the grammatical error of the article using the incorrect and improper version of the Past Participle of the Verb 'run' - specifically ' HAVE RAN ' instead of the correct ' HAVE RUN ' .
I am going to move this mediation onto its case page because it is clear that I am not going to get anywhere here. I'd appreciate it if all parties answered the question templates that I have left for them here. Thank you. —Xyrael / 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Article again
I am starting to question the commitment some here have to actually improving this article - rather than just arguing or deleting content they disagree with. Believe it or not - my query about Alan changing his last name yesterday was asked in good faith. It was also potentially important. Men changing their last names is not that common, and not always done with innocent motivation. On the other hand maybe he did so due to threats from some crazy anarchist? Who knows? I thought I'd ask. Face the facts. This article is crap. I'd be mortified if it was an article on MY organization - even if that was a 3rd grade glee club. When I suggested to another editor (Ruthfulbarbarity né Wrathbone) that he re-write the criticism section and expand it yesterday - he blew me off. That section and reactions, in particular, are embarrassingly poor, and NO ONE here seems to care enough to edit them. I would like to float the idea that someone who knows how add a temporary article page, (see archives for when this was adopted) and maybe those of us who are actually interested in this article can get to work on it there? What do you guys think of that?
Notwithstanding your assertion, there are many individuals-both male and female-who legally change either their surnames or given names every single year for either personal or professional reasons.
Although it is not the norm, it is far from a rarity.
Your opinion as to the quality of this article is not dispositive.
If you think that it needs to improved, then suggest improvements.
If a consensus can be reached your suggestions will be adopted.
If not, then they won't.
The subject of an article does not any say on how he or she is portrayed, and the same goes for people who run organizations that have entries on Wikipedia.
There was a photo of Alan and Kfir for close to 2 years until it was deleted not long ago. Evidently the PWers and supporters who maintained this entry thought it important, at one time. The photo and, even more importantly, the layout integrity of the article weren't important to the CURRENT crop of PWers 'maintaining' this entry though. After the previous deletion, you PWers didn't even bother to edit out the 'missing image info' or empty picture box, which disfigured the article for weeks, so I took it upon myself to upload a new pic. I don't think a pic of Alan and Kfir is of 'paramount' importance - I don't think it's important at all - I thought YOU PWers might like to see it replaced. I agree with Vpoko - almost "nobody is going to read this article" anyway, so it really doesn't matter to me. I was merely trying to be helpful.
It doesn't matter to you? The article mattered to you enough to create a "Neocons Be Gone Protest Warrior Sucks" handle exclusively to edit this article. --Neverborn19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your apparent correlation between my user name acronym and why you think 'it must matter to me' that the photo be replaced, after my last suggestion to replace it was thoroughly rebuffed. The photo that I had uploaded in an attempt to be helpful - and frankly - out of pity.
As for the "criticism" section I have made several workable suggestions, foremost among them being a recommendation that we break down your links-which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines, with the possible exception of the MTV feature-and other, supportive, links into separate sections, which would address the concern over whether or not there was sufficient "criticism" present in this article.
And again, the size of the criticism section is irrelevant to this discussion.
There is no provision within Wikipedia, which stipulates that each and every article about a theoretically controversial organization have an extensive criticism section.
If there are numerous reliable, authoritative sources that critique a particular public figure or organization, then so be it.
However, we should not insert miscellaneous, unverifiable criticism into an article simply because one-or several-individuals feel that an article "needs" a more lengthy criticism subsection.
User:NBGPWS, just for the record, I completely believe your question regarding the name change was asked in good faith. My flippant answer was in jest; I thought my comment was funny when paired with the picture of the hot blonde. Regardless, I don't know why the gentleman changed his name. That being said, while the article can always be improved, I don't think it is "crap". Also, try not to take things personally if people don't respond to your suggestions. Wikipedia is a totally volunteer project. People edit what they like (so long as they follow policy) and you're setting yourself up for disappointment and heartache if you start to create "expectations" of others. If you think the article can be improved in a specific way and nobody is doing it, WP:Be Bold. That your edits may be reverted by those same people who didn't do what you asked them to do is just something that "comes with the territory". Lawyer2b05:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you counselor! Despite our differences I always find your advice most helpful and offered in good spirit. May I take the liberty of suggesting that you volunteer to fill the Katherine Harris campaign manager position at your earliest opportunity ? She desperately needs someone with your smarts and temperment! :-)
Bah. Katherine Harris can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. The last thing we need is another theocrat in office. And yes, that's coming from a Protest Warrior. Rogue 911:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yecch. I completely agree. I hadn't heard those statements before but had already decided not to support her. I'm not conservative, but rather a libertarian with conservative values. In my book, individual freedom trumps "preventing sin through legislation" so I disagree with conservatives on such issues as gay marriage. Of course, one the best quotes I have seen in favor of allowing it is sometimes attributed to Kinky "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore" Friedman" (who should be the next governor of Texas): "Sure, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us." Lawyer2b13:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I had a good laugh at his "Five Mexican Generals Plan". He's great! And that plan should at least be tried. :-)
Mediation closure
It seems clear to me that those involved in this dispute are not willing to let this mediation process kick off. I don't think it's appropriate for me to try and mediate informally here because of this, and so if there are no real objections I will be closing this mediation soon. Thank you. —Xyrael / 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling it wouldn't work out. I wish it were otherwise, but there's too much animosity here, much of it held over from the Protest Warrior forums themselves. Rogue 912:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am totally confused and would like mediation. I have no idea what we are doing that is preventing the mediation process from "kicking off". Can you let us know what we're doing wrong and/or what we need to do differently to mediate? Thanks. Lawyer2b13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Follow the link in the beige template above and answer the questions, L2B. I'll answer in full later today. I presume anyone who wants to can take the liberty of duplicating the questions posed to the 3 people listed, and answer them as well. I will be asking these same questions to Morton Devonshire and Tbeatty.
I would like to point out that Ruthfulbarbarity continues to obsessively-compulsively focus on and edit MY words on the mediation and discussion pages - content with no encyclopedic value -- rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL (added for RB) error been OBVIOUS for DAYS, and brought to his attention. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."' I consider this an intentional provocation and an attempt to bait me. [6][7]
LOL! But you only correct MY spelling and grammar - and ignore the obvious error in the article noted above - and when you made an ERROR editing my spelling - as in you did when you mistakingly corrected 'né' to née - you refused to correct it back to the PROPER and CORRECT spelling when you were proved wrong. Your actions aren't fooling anyone.
Thatz goud to know, but the fakt that he woodnt' correct 'née' back to 'nẽ' when it was proofed beyont a shadoe auf a dout that he waz rong speeks voluumz abuot hiz motifs. Hees knot a very gout spellir eather. I had too korrect a hole bunch of erorrs in his spilling to!
Let it be noted that what you are doing right now, i.e. intentionally distorting my words, and reindeer-ing them unreadable, in order to engage in an infantile fit, could be construed as vandalizm.
Im knot distorting yer wordz and makieng them unreeddable. Im corecting youre spilling, gramer an puncaution. Like yuo told me after I PROOFED yer use of 'née' was wrong and the edit you made to my words inkorrect and impropir "There's nothing preventing you from reverting my edits, if you feel that I have erred." You wood half korrected the ARTICEL - specifcly ' HAVE RAN ' to ' HAVE RUN ' if you hat aktualy kared abuot korrect and propper spilling and gramar.
For the record, I made that grammatical error in the article body, not RB. I am usually quite particular about grammar thus don't mind if people correct me; either it was a typo, and I know that someone is watching my back, or it was ignorance of the correct usage, and I am happy to learn. However, I would appreciate if NBGPWS could get over himself and just correct the damn grammar. There is no need, other than provocation, to ask someone else to correct it, unless you yourself do not know how. That includes both ran/run and the nee thing he seems so hung up about. TheKaplan23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for yer interpetation. There was no raeson for ruthbar né wrathbone to knot have corected the eror he made to MY tects when proofed wrong, and ascked to eithor, or for him to KNOT half corrected 'ran to run' if he ACTUALY WAS concerned with correckt spilling and gramar. The edits hees made on this TALK page, witch haz no encyclopeadeicic valuu, are the axtions of somone tring to controil and fcuk with othrz, not somone who kares about corect spilling and gramar. I doan want to edit 'ran to run' cuz somebodee wil probbably accuze me of sumthing badd!
You have made nearly 950 edits since you first registered with Wikipedia.
Almost every one related, to a greater or lesser degree, to the subject of Protest Warrior.
Don't you think that your time could be better applied by conducting yourself in a mature manner, and, at the very least, attempting to work with other editors in pursuit of improving this one very narrow niche of Wikipedia - one which seems to have captivated your full and undivided attention?
You tawked abuot sum peoples legaly changeing there names all teh time when I asxsed you abuot Alan Lipton nè Davidson, butt(sehkts) you dint never anser my kwestion!!! Did Alan legaly change hiss name frum Davidson to Lipton ?
Discussion on talk pages is not Encyclopedic Content submitted for 'peer review'. Please stop. To take liberties with the monumentally memorable line of speech from 'The Planet of the Apes', spoken by the great actor and tireless defender of the 2nd amendment Charlton Heston - and offered only in good humour - again I suggest: "Keep your stinkin' paws off my text, you damned dirty ape !" I hope you are enjoying your Worker's Day, Ruthfulbarbarity! :-)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Sign your comments (see above)
Log in. (Read why here.)
Use coherent formatting.
Copy formatting from others.
Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
Break up very large paragraphs.
Be civil at all times.
Don't make personal attacks
Don't SHOUT Do not edit other user's comments.
The only person who needs help-in many different, substantive ways-is you.
I suggest that you seek it out, or at least refrain from disturbing the peace simply because other editors respectfully disagree with your point of view.
You could, at the very least, stop spamming this page with the same exact message-reiterated ad nauseam-after everyone here has already read it once.
Regarding your improper, unapproved, illegitimate, unsanctioned, Illegal and Illicit disallowed edits of my talk and discussion comments:
You told ME to 'look it up' and it would prove you right. Once again, after 'looking it up', I am right, and YOU have proven WRONG. Show me EXACTLY where you claim WP says you're allowed to edit my talk and discussion comments.
Basic rules for all talk pages Do not edit other user's comments.
Until you document, with WP that overides the WP which I posted - proving that you are allowed to edit my comments on talk pages - you are hereby ordered not to edit my talk or discussion comments !
Ruthfulbarbarity wrote regarding his improper, unapproved, illegitimate, unsanctioned, Illegal and Illicit editing of my talk comments:
"If you don't want your writings mercielessly edited, then do not subject them to peer review. That is not a recommendation I just conceived of, but one which is part of Wikipedia guidelienes. You can check it out for yourself, if you're so inclined."
Your non-answer to my charges of skullduggery, and inability to back your specious claims amount to a concession that you were wrong, and that you hereby agree to stop editing my comments. GOOD ! It's about time ! I hope you learned your lesson, Ruthfulbarbarity nè Wrathbone ! 'Shape Up and Fly Right' is what I've always said !
NBGPWS07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Added the 'crawford incident' back in
I added the Crawford incident back in, with CBS sourcing. Did that 'operation' have one of those trademark clever and patriotic-sounding PW names? If so, I can't seem to find it! Will one of you guys ask Kfir? He doesn't reply to my queries for info, nor requests to show up here and affirm that he's still actively involved with PW!
This is an official WP warning template ((notyours))
You were wrong....
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
Is your goal to exhaust the patience of all those who don't agree with you so you can ruin the article like you planned to until I warned you after you were adding Nazi slogans to it that you would get banned? I can barely even stomach looking at the talk page anymore since your block expired. --Neverborn04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS, please stop using a warning template every time you feel the need to try out something new. Please keep in mind that frivolous warnings for the sake of warning people you do not agree with politically is not civil. Thanks. Love, --Neverborn17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that approx half of the current revision of the article was written or contributed by me - your charges that my goal could be to 'ruin the article' are so far removed from reality that they can only be construed as a baseless personal attack. I suggest you seek advice on effective insults from Ruthbar. Your faux warning above impressed me as only silly and childish - lacking any 'bite'. I actually chuckled out-loud at its insipidness ! Cheers. NBGPWS19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
'Sign Creation Tutorials'
From the article:
The group maintains a website as an organizing and information hub. It also acts as a source for the many slogans and signs presented by Protest Warriors at protests, as well as offering various tutorials on sign creation.
Could one of you PW's provide the links to the 'various tutorials on sign creation' ? I couln't find 'em.
Ahhhh - that's why I couldn't find it. So you have to join PW 'headquarters' and be approved for membership to access that link, unless you know the URL? That link isn't even viewable to the general public from the public PW site? If that's the case, I'm not sure it should be mentioned without that important caveat. I'd like Vpoko to weigh in on that. Furthermore, 'various tutorials' leads one to believe that there are several tutorials. There's only one? There were 'various' (several) tutorials at one time, and now they're all gone but one? Please explain. Thanks NBGPWS05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Good addition, Neverborn - but you're conflating two events into one.
On September 24, 2005, Protest Warrior, along with other organizations supporting the Iraq war such as Move America Forward and RightMarch, counterprotested against a national protest coordinated by International ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, and Cindy Sheehan. Protest Warrior's crowd drew about 400 people, including members of the armed forces as well as "Gold Star" families of military members who died in Iraq. Organizers of the counterprotest had hoped for far larger attendance numbering into the thousands. [10][11][12]
The first two links document the MAF/RM/PW protests on Saturday Sept 24 (crowd 100-200), the third link Free Republic's protest on Sunday - the one which drew approx 400. This one: "We are preparing for as many as 20,000 people, just to be on the safe side," said Kristinn Taylor, a leader of FreeRepublic.com, one of the sponsors." It's also improper to call it 'Protest Warrior's Crowd' when PW was only one of three orgs sponsoring the demonstration. Also, did PW secure a permit, or were you protesting on the permit of MAF or RM? Will you post a new corrected version for discussion here, or would you like me to? NBGPWS18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
PW was a part of all the events - from FR's support at the Hospital Friday, to the protests Saturday, to the rally Sunday. It was "Support Our Troops and Their Mission Weekend." The permit along the protest march route was secured by PW, and the permit for Sunday was Free Republic, I believe. I'll edit some more later, but it's time to eat Subway now. --Neverborn18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be the case, but the third link - for FR's rally on Sunday - doesn't even mention Protest Warrior at ALL, so I am mystified as to why you would include it, and even more mystified as to why you would use the crowd estimate of 400 to describe the PW protest - that number being taken from the article which didn't mention PW. Enjoy your lunch. By the way... Quizno's kicks Subway's butt! NBGPWS19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it shouldn't be called "Protest Warrior's" crowd based on the cited source but rather a notable event in which protest warriors participated. However, in that light, both the the third link and the 400 count reference make perfect sense. Lawyer2b22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The third link doesn't mention PW. It can't even be used, let alone crowd figures from it. If you find a MSM link that says PW's were at the FR rally on Sunday, that could work. NBGPWS22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The MSN link describes the event the protest warriors particpated in regardless of whether it specifically mentions them by name. The link supports the description that the event drew 400 people and is appropriate for inclusion. Lawyer2b22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So far, you have no verifiable, reliable, third-party source stating that PW"s were at the FR event on Sunday. Even if you had photos and accounts on a blog or PW itself, of PW's being there, you couldn't assert that unless an acceptable third-party source said that they were present. NBGPWS23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Assuming we're talking about the "past operation" that is mentioned to have occurred on September 24, 2005, I don't believe the sources cited identify it as being a one-organization (Free Republic or Protest Warrior) event. I disagree again when you say that there is "no verifiable, reliable, third-party source stating that PW"s were" at the event on Sunday. This Washington Post article (cited in the wikipedia article) states "members of such organizations as Move America Forward and RightMarch.com and Protest Warrior" were there. User:NBGPWS, are we talking about the same event? Lawyer2b23:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll post the info again.
The first two links (15, 16) document the MAF/RM/PW/FR counter-protests on Saturday Sept 24 (crowd 100-200), the third link (17) documents Free Republic's rally on Sunday the 25th - the one which drew approx 400 vs the 20,000 hoped for. (much to the delight of us lefties) These are separate actions on different days. I think this is a photo of Sunday's event Lonely Freeper RallyNBGPWS23:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your numbers don't match the ones in the article because the citations' numbers change if any are added or deleted to the entire thing. Could you post the actual links to the sources instead of just their numbers? That would make it much easier for me to see what you are talking about. Thanks. :-) Lawyer2b00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
After checking the sources in the article, I think I see the problem. I wasn't aware that there were two different counterprotesting events. One apparently took place on Saturday, September 24, 2005 and the second took place the next day, Sunday, September 25, 2005. User:NBGPWS is correct that, at present, there is no reliable source cited that Protest Warriors took part in the Sunday event, only the Saturday one. Lawyer2b00:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes sir - that is exactly right. Sort of. The 2nd event on Sunday was a FR sponsored pro war rally, so if PW's were there - they were there in support of FR and the war, not in their typical role of counterprotesting. NBGPWS00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. If someone finds an RS regarding the next day demonstration we can just add that back in. :-) Lawyer2b12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Protest Warrior forums down for an indefinite period
The boards just went down about five minutes ago, replaced with a message saying that they will be down until "further notice." Just thought I'd toss that out there; I've no idea how long that'll last. Rogue 916:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I added it in the section of the article dealing with the website. We don't need one o' them there "current events" templates, do we? Lawyer2b19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw that too. Maybe all the banned trolls who they let back in like English Cowpie, TCRAP and REV. PhelpsJr broke it with their incessant spam! I seem to remember a backup forum. URL? NBGPWS01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no official backup forum. There is the HQ forum, but that can't be read by people who aren't registered. A few of the chapters also have their own forums. Rogue 913:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Friday, September 15, 2006 Protest Warrior Forums Nuked
Well, it finally happened. The owners of Protest Warrior have nuked the forums. Rumor has it they (the forums) were a "waste of band width" and had become " an embarrassment to the organization."
The PW site is still up, but for all intents and purposes, the organization is dead. There were something like 14000 registered members on PW. 14000 people looking for an outlet for their anger, their energy, their ideas, and their American pride. It will take some doing, but I'm sure one of my intrepid friends will start up another site, another movement. And I, for one, will be signing up and jumping in with both feet. Bring on the fight!!"
A claim of 14,000 'members' LOL ! Anyone who claims the number of total registrations on any intraweb forum equals active members is deranged. I probably accounted for 100 registrations! LOL ! Ruthbar, I encouraged you to take over before PW collapsed ! Now its too late. We'll have to make some MAJOR changes to the article now. I'll go easy on you PW's for a while, as I know your lives are shattered. NBGPWS20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
"I probably accounted for 100 registrations."
Yes, prolific trolls usually do register under many sock puppet accounts.
Maybe you guys can have a mock funeral for PW as your next PW event! LOL! I think it might be time to renominate the article for deletion! You had your chance to save PW, Ruthbar! You piked! LOL! NBGPWS23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of the regulars have moved elsewhere (and no, I'm not telling you where), and in the meantime, Protest Warrior as an organization is still there. Alan and Kfir have publicly said nothing about the forums being down; I don't know where you got that, but unless that person has information I don't (unlikely), then he doesn't know either. Rogue 914:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Back from my one week ban! What DID you PW's get done? The only thing I can tell is that a PW or one of your supporters were back to their usual tactics - and changed the article and the number of PW's at a protest from 13 (documented by WAPO) to 50! (Luckily Kuzaar caught this blatant attempt by a PW or PW supporter to inject lies into the article, and grossly exaggerate PW's support!) Some things never change do they? NBGPWS10:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It says I care more about spreading the truth than being polite. By the way, I said "PW or PW supporter". Why did Keifer and Allen pull the plug on PW? Keifer was asked to come here weeks ago to attest that he and Alan were still 'leading' PW, and that PW was actually still operating, but he refused. Why's that? Too busy? It wouldn't take him more than a few minutes! Why didn't he even post a message before he pulled the plug on PW? The Command and Control Forum said "The command and control center is where we plan and coordinate our nationwide strike against the Left" With that forum gone, and Keifer and Allen's refusal to address these issues, I think we can safely assume PW is definately no longer operating under their 'leadership', and maybe not operating at all, can't we?NBGPWS21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"It says I care more about spreading the truth than being polite."
I suggest that you read this, if you haven't already, or reread it if you have already done so.
Also, if you want to probe the thoughts of Alan and Kfir-and you seem to be the only person here fixated on this subject-then I suggest you send them an e-mail.
Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you don't repeat the same question ad nauseam, to no avail.
The comments about Kfir and Alan on the PW 'refugee' board show that a great many people are 'fixated' on their (in)actions and whereabouts. They were contacted several times, requesting that they show up here, and a Wiki Mod also requested that Kfir affirm or deny his 'abortion comments'. By his inaction, it's apparent that he just doesn't care. NBGPWS07:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity, why is there no explanation from Kfir and Alan on the PW site (or anywhere else) as to why they pulled the plug on the forums - the essential place where PW's 'activities' are planned? You seem to be in touch with them via email. Don't you know? NBGPWS08:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in touch with any subject of this article through e-mail, and I would suggest that you not try to contact me by e-mail either.
You've repeatedly claimed that Kfir and Alan respond when contacted about PW issues, even though I posted the verbatim comments from a long-time PW in good standing who emailed them numerous times about counter-protest issues, and never got a response. They never responded to requests to show up here either. They also never explained why they pulled the forums - forums essential to the counter-protest 'operations' of PW. Since your claim that they're 'responsive' totally contradicts all evidence, one might reasonably assume that you're in email contact with them.
It doesn't contradict any evidence, since you've presented absolutely no evidence that you've ever contacted either Alan or Kfir, or that you have any intention of doing so.
I'd appreciate it if you just abandon this straw-man argument, since it seems that you are more concerned with creating acrimony-and debating peripheral, if not utterly meaningless, subjects, which have absolutely nothing to do with the article in question-then actually contributing positively to this discussion. Ruthfulbarbarity22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You think I'm going to post the emails I sent to Alan and Kfir for your edification? LOL! Here's proof they ignored a PW with issues relating to PW: "I was a member of the Phila chap before the hack and protested in Phila when the anti-war nuts were here. But for some reason Mr. Kfir has some sort of bug up his ass and will not let me rejoin or even give me an answer. My activation or pleas for it go unanswered. Never done anything to him or had words with anyone???? I love what PW does and am going to be apart of it anyway."USA_FIRST"
The byline for Command and Control Forum (NOW CLOSED) boasted "The command and control center is where we plan and coordinate our nationwide strike against the Left" 'nationwide strike', no longer. NBGPWS23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Protest Warrior Headquarters.
Why do you think it is referred to as "headquarters?"
The emails I sent don't exist? LOL! I suggest you be more careful of accusing me of being a liar on these pages. I will find the relevent WP for your education. see No explanation for Kfir's refusal to help the PW quoted above I see. It seems he wanted to rejoin this mythical 'headquarters' you talk about. They didn't even bother to respond.NBGPWS23:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also appreciate it if you quit trying to provoke me, Ruthfulbarbarity. One need only look at your recent and frequent unwanted commentary to my talk page (removed in accordance with WP) to see the proof of your actions. NBGPWS23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection this is the first time you have ever implied that you attempted to contact either of the administrators at the Protest Warrior forums.
Insofar as there is no evidence that you have tried to contact them-beyond your latest assertion-I don't see why I should assume that this is common knowledge.
Even if you did attempt to contact them-and thus far you've provided no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that you have-I don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. Ruthfulbarbarity00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The only person who is attempting any sort of provocation on this page is you. The same person who has been blocked from editing this page on six separate occasion, lest I remind you.
The fact that you inflate the number of times I've been blocked from the actual number of 4 to 6 says all anyone needs to know about your relationship with the truth. Enough chitter chatter. Back to work. NBGPWS02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You've been blocked five times-thus far-which is what I stated, although I began to lose track at some point. Hence, the question mark.
4 times, and once was for only 8 hours. Your claim is about as genuine as the one that you're trying to steer this discussion back to the article NBGPWS18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The person who's steered us onto this tangent in the first place is you.
And it was 5 times, although some of the blocks were of a shorter duration than others.
If you want to discuss the article, then there is nothing preventing you from doing so, other than your inclination to dwell on irrelevant tangents and material that bears no relation to the article in question. Ruthfulbarbarity19:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
