Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Protest Warrior still in operation?

PW was supposed to take part in a rally last weekend.

CNS

News reports and Free Republic make no mention that any Protest Warriors actually showed up. They mention all the other groups that said they would take part, but not Protest Warrior. Is this because, yet again, Protest Warrior failed to attend one of their own 'operations' due to lack of support?

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707240/posts?q=1&&page=1 Free Republic]

Wash Times

Where ARE the after-action reports and pictures from the Protest Warriors - of this event that they were supposed to take part in?

When WAS the last PW 'operation' as documented on the Protest Warrior website?

NBGPWS 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Their forums seem to be down too, and their site hasn't been updated in months. The manifesto still talks about the upcoming 2004 Republican National Congress in New York. Axeman89 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Last month called; they want their topic back. The organization is still running, even though the public forums are not. It's not as active as it was in it's heyday, but it's still around. Rogue 9 04:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive 12 filed

I've archive the page. All done.--James Bond 05:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Bond! I was going to include everything after 'protest warrior down for an indef period' but your edit should work. Many thanks to Ryulong too! NBGPWS 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why in God's name did you do an entire page move to the archive? That just took away the entire edit history for this page. Rogue 9 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why no answers from either of you two Protest Warriors to my queries above? Essential questions concerning Protest Warrior's very existence are more important than archiving issues, aren't they? NBGPWS 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the fact that your questions-insofar as they merited a response-have already been answered, no.

Please consult other editors or Wikipedia guidelines if you don't know how to archive a page properly, instead of taking it upon yourself to make wholesale adjustments. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've archive (sic) the page. All done.--[User:Smoth 007|James Bond] 05:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Pay attention, please. NBGPWS 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Added notability template, etc

Added notability template in consideration of nominating article for deletion. (or major changes to the article to reflect the org's demise) No evidence that PW still exists as an ongoing organization, and the Protest Warriors active on Wiki are at a loss to find any as well. NBGPWS 03:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the following need to be deleted, as the link to Keifer's denial goes to the deleted PW forum? It was advised by a Wiki mod that Keifer make an appearance here to clear this up. He never did.

Kfir claimed, on the Protest Warrior forum, almost two years after the article was published, that he had been misquoted. [1]

NBGPWS 03:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say an organization must be active to be notable? Anywhere? Reliable sources are CITED. This is getting removed. Your "clever" deliberate misspellings of the founders' names don't mean that you get carte blanche to go through with your original plan to ruin the article - we're still watching. --Neverborn 03:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel you're Assuming Good Faith, NB! So you, a Protest Warrior, concede that Protest Warrior, as an organization, is inactive. Thanks. NBGPWS 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS, 1) You may be right that NB is not assuming good faith, but he is perfectly justified in doing so per WP:AGF which states, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I think any observer could reasonably not assume good faith with practically any edit you make to this article. 2) What specific part of the notability guidelines do you feel the article violates? Lawyer2b 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not inactive.

There are at least four ongoing operations, according to PW HQ.

The Protest Warrior forums, which are a subsidiary of PW are inactive.

The fact that you can't distinguish between the two is not our problem. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are at least four ongoing operations, according to PW HQ.

Riiiight! Do you have some verifiable third party documentation of that? Will they be as successful as last weekend's? When WAS the last time a PW 'operation' was documented in the MSM? NBGPWS 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do one of you PW's want to delete the following from the article, or should I?

Kfir claimed, on the Protest Warrior forum, almost two years after the article was published, that he had been misquoted. [2]

NBGPWS 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Following Ruthfulbarbarity's suggestion, I just checked PW HQ using Google Cache. PW HQ The last time that page was updated was on 8/14/05 and it talks of an UPCOMING event scheduled to take place on 9/24/05. No updates in OVER a year. Methinks you shouldn't have used PW HQ to try and bolster your specious arguments that Protest Warrior, as an organization, is still active, Ruthfulbarbarity. It's not. It's dead. It's deader than the proverbial doornail NBGPWS 06:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that the page above talks about Protest Warrior's 'Latest Newsletter'. It says Protest Warrior's LATEST NEWSLETTER dates from 7/07/04! NBGPWS 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS, one cannot help but get the impression you think that speculation about the subject of an article (unsupported vis-a-vis wikipedia policy as it may be) can eventually be included in the article if it is simply "proven" through enough debate on the article's talk page. In their wildest dreams, should someone "win" a debate of that nature, because one side concedes, admits, or concludes that "the other side is right" about any speculation that has no support other than their collective opinion(s), it still should not be included in the article as it still violates policy. While I might enjoy a debate of this nature in a different forum, for it to take place on a talk page is a waste of wikipedia resources as it provides no help in writing the article. As I have stated before, find one reliable source for any fact and you will find me at your service to assist in including it. Lawyer2b 13:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lawyer2b one cannot help but get the impression that you and the other Protest Warriors active here care more about making sure the article makes PW look good than WP as well - as my discussion on removing Keifer's unsupported claim which was deemed dubious WEEKS ago, and since Sept 13 linking to a deleted forum was completely ignored. This proves that as long as a violation of WP supports PW it's AOK with you all! I brought up this important issue twice. Twice the 4 Protest Warrior who are active here refused to address it. The proof is in the pudding! NBGPWS 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My most kind, and dear, User:NBGPWS, while I can understand why you might have that impression, at least in my case, I can assure you that you are mistaken. My editing has been more sporadic lately (got a clerking job!) and my eye has been trained to look for negative material on the group that violates policies as, to me at least, I perceive that to be a bigger problem. I also know that you are present, ever-watchful for inappropriate positive material, and can be counted on to remove it should I not have time. I would ask that you assume good faith and do not attribute a double-standard to what can adequately be explained by time-constraints, editing style, etc. That said, I would like to reiterate my belief in the unprofitable nature of the debates you engage in on the talk page; I fear they will only result in your receiving longer bans, which I would not like to see. Lawyer2b 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation , L2B, but it doesn't explain the other 3 extremely active PW's ingnoring the issue I put forth. Congrats on the clerking job! One can only hope it's with the ACLU! If not, maybe I can get you a gig there. (volunteering) I'm a member! NBGPWS 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If the ACLU was consistent with regards to fighting for liberty by fighting for economic (fighting for repealing minimum wage laws and the rights of businesses to discriminate, etc.) as well as personal freedom I'd join in a second. Instead, not only do they just fight for personal freedoms but only "personal freedom" as narrowly construed by American liberals (e.g. not fighting for the rights of gun owners). Heck, if they actually fought for meaningful personal freedom expansion (e.g. ending the war on drugs, legalizing prostitution, and ending the FDA's reign of terror) I'd consider joining. As it is, I look forward to becoming one of the ACLU's most feared adversaries. Among other things, my boss specializes in representing Cubans who had their property confiscated by the communist regime Castro and preparing to represent those property rights/claims when he kicks the dust (hopefully soon). Lawyer2b 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a mighty tall soapbox you've got there L2B!. Yeah, the ACLU taking up the cases of Rush Limbaugh, Fred Phelps and numerous other nutty Xtian causes is soooo liberal.September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show. more Think for yourself my friend, don't buy into that Reichwing disinfo they're spoonfeeding you. Ya think you know more than life-long conservatives Bob Barr and Dick Armey who have teamed up with the ACLU? Wake up, conselor! NBGPWS 05:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er... conselor, you need to read up! :-) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs. Not only is prohibition a proven failure as a drug control strategy, but it subjects otherwise law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for what they do in private. ACLU drug policy NBGPWS 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU is against laws that subject citizens to arrest for what they do in private, like own drugs - but for laws that subject citizens to arrest for what they do in private, like own guns.--Neverborn 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS, I must admit I'm surprised to find the ACLU defending Christians. I'm not one but I sympathize with them and do believe in (most) traditional Judeo-Christian values. You've made me least want to read a little more about the ACLU and find out if it's just window dressing or if they spend as much time on those kinds of cases as they do on the ones I vehemently disagree with. Thanks, though, for teaching me something I did not know before. Lawyer2b 12:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New section break; ACLU and such

Because the previous section is way too long and off topic by now anyway. I'm tempted to file all the pointless bickering under here. Rogue 9 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Ruthfulbarbarity 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There's simply no need for the ACLU to spend their precious time and resources on 2nd amendment issues when the NRA (one of the most powerful lobbies in the country) and several other orgs are specifically targeted at these issues. I don't think you would WANT them working on them as you and them are on opposite sides of the issue: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." ACLU and guns Considering that Bob Barr - who is such a Gun Nut that once he shot off a gun in his congressional offices - joined and supports the ACLU - perhaps even you could put aside your differences of opinion with them on this issue, and join this org - the most important NGO fighting for our Constitutionally granted personal freedoms and civil liberties. This is not the place to discuss the important work of the ACLU though. Perhaps you would like to join me in editing that article? It's time to move on. Hmmmm - Maybe we could edit Moveon too! ;-) NBGPWS 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU's position on the right to keep and bear is unmitigated bullshit, and nothing but. They have their uses, but gun rights are not one of them, and free exercise is one only rarely. Now can we get back to the article, please?

Anyway, Kfir claimed he was misquoted and we all know it. Everyone involved saw the post, and we all know that the Kfir on the boards is, in fact, Kfir Alfia. All the obfuscation in the world will not change those basic facts. Rogue 9 13:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Neocons will probably remove this template from his homepage on Wikipedia-as he has done on several other occasions-I'll spare myself the trouble and just post it here.

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.

Ruthfulbarbarity 15:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey R9 - regarding Keifer's alleged denial - please read the WP on OR (Original Research) or get L2B to explain it to you. Also, you're being revisionist when you claim that everyone knows Keifer claimed he had been misquoted. Even some PW's postulated that his quotes were 'taken out of context' not that he had been 'misquoted'. NBGPWS 20:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey R9 (Part II) Let's knock off the profanity, OK? I hope I won't be reading any more expletives like "bullshit" from you again! I was deeply shocked and personally offended to have to read that here! You don't need to be offensive and profane to get your point across. This isn't protest warrior - Wiki has SOME standards! NBGPWS 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where in those standards is violating WP numerous times (including a few blocks for you) and to give an example, putting Nazi Party slogans in article where they don't belong? --Neverborn 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That was before I learned that the Wiki section of the Intrawebs is SERIOUS BUSINESS! NBGPWS 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. I don't care how offended you are; it's not my problem that you have a thin skin. When trying to create a serious reference work, intellectual dishonesty is far more offensive and harmful than profanity, and you're exhibiting it in spades right now. You know for a fact that he denied saying those things, and are simply using an unrelated event (the removal of the board) as an excuse to remove that perfectly legitimate and important piece of information. Rogue 9 09:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using any 'excuse'. If something can't be verified by WP approved sources, it's not legitimate and has no place on Wiki. You need to read up on WP. NBGPWS 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't.

The only person who needs to "read up" on the relevant Wikipedia guidelines is you, Neocons, because you have violated numerous ones throughout your time here and continue to do so on an almost daily basis. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an outside view on this- Wikipedia is not censored, it's true. However, it is important to realize that that is irrelevant since the censorship in question refers to articlespace. The Wikipedia Civility guidelines are in place for discussion (e.g. on talk pages), and the use of inflammatory language on either side of a discussion is not appropriate, is divisive, and is not useful for a healthy discussion environment. I know how strongly everyone feels when it comes to political matters, but everyone should please remember to keep a cool head on talk pages. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are in place. Fortunately, I did not violate them, as the language was not directed at him. For example, I could have easily and justifiably called him a fucking moron, but refrained from using that most accurate description because of the silly, anachronistic view that policy takes on using the English language to it's fullest extent when it comes to other editors. I reiterate, the true harm and true incivility here is the intellectual dishonesty and outright trolling of NBGPWS, not a few descriptive adjectives that do no objective harm to anyone. Rogue 9 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't work yourself up into a such a lather Ruth! I've moved on to editing the entry of an org that actually exists, and matters! I'm still watching this one though, so don't get any ideas, like changing 13 PW's to 50 again! AFD coming soon! NBGPWS 06:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the top of this page:

This article was nominated for deletion on 23:07, 14 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Already been tried, and failed to produce results. Keep that AFD to yourself. Rogue 9 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming I'm not ALLOWED to AFD the article again? I think I can - and I probably will. PW has had no documented activity since the last AFD, and no mentions in the press that I can find. IMHO, it doesn't pass 'notability' test (if it ever did) NBGPWS 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And it will promptly be removed if you choose to do so.

Stop attempting to mutiliate this article, Neocons.

You've already been blocked-on five separate occasions-and been warned too many times to recount.

Your repeated attempts to introduce your own biases, deliberate factual errors and/or misleading information is not appreciated by any of the editors here.

This includes people who are Protest Warriors and those who are not, as well as people who theoretically support the goals of Protest Warrior and those who do not, so cease and desist from your attempt to paint yourself as the victim of some clandestine cabal.

However difficult this might be you should at the very least attempt to modify your behavior so that it comes into compliance with Wikipedia rules regarding civility and proper conduct. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior has engaged in several large operations-including co-sponsoring a rally outside of the NYT's headquarters where over 200 individuals were in attendance-and extensive media coverage since the last insipid afd nomination.

In fact, Protest Warrior was mentioned by National Review-an intellectual magazine of which I'm sure you're completely ignorant-a few months ago.

Either you are deliberately lying-in order to enhance your own tendentious, baseless, inaccurate accusations-or you are grossly ignorant of these matters, which leads me to believe that you have no business participating in this discussion in the first place. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep dreaming Ruth.

PW was supposed to take part in a rally Sept 23 or 24.

CNS

News reports and Free Republic make no mention that any Protest Warriors actually showed up. They mention all the other groups that said they would take part, but not Protest Warrior. Is this because, yet again, Protest Warrior failed to attend one of their own 'operations' due to lack of support?

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707240/posts?q=1&&page=1 Free Republic]

Wash Times

Where ARE the after-action reports and pictures from the Protest Warriors - of this event that they were supposed to take part in?

When WAS the last PW 'operation' as documented on the Protest Warrior website or in the MSM?

NBGPWS 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Protest Warrior as an organization ceased existing simply because the public forums were shut down (which is as ridiculous a line of argument as I've ever heard, but whatever).

What makes this suddenly require deletion of the article? If you think it does, you have your work cut out. I suggest that you start by putting up George Washington's article for deletion; after all, he hasn't existed in over 200 years. You might then move on to the Peloponnesian War. In fact, there seem to be thousands of articles about people and events that no longer exist; I suggest you get busy.

Even if you were right, and you are not, you would have absolutely zero grounds to have this article deleted. Grow up and get over yourself. Rogue 9 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV opinion by a disinterested neutral party - Vpoko - was that PW was 'not notable' to begin with. It's even less so now. Civility, R9. Cheers. NBGPWS 05:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I have been civil long enough. My continued restraint is out of respect for Wikipedia policy and the other editors, not out of any goodwill towards you. You might yet earn my respect, but if you continue your current course, then that is extremely unlikely. Now, answer me: If you feel that people and things that no longer exist are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, why aren't you starting deletion referendums on articles about things that are actually long gone, instead of things that you merely wish were? I gave you two very excellent starting places, even. I suggest you either get cracking or drop the notion that this article needs to endure yet another pointless deletion vote. Rogue 9 12:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are being this obtuse unintentionally, or by design?

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1701474/posts

In the wake of the September 11th five-year anniversary, it is important that service men and women and their families are given the support, appreciation and gratitude they deserve.

The rally is organized by FreeRepublic.com, Military Families Voice of Victory and Protest Warrior.

Either apprise yourself of the facts before pontificating upon things of which you know absolutely nothing-by all evidence-or cease to comment upon this subject.

Almost everything you've added to this discussion-since you joined this website-has been of a negative nature, and the fact that you continue to post misleading statements-either out of malicious intent, or simply due to pure, unadulterated ignorance-only demonstrates your bad faith.

Either learn about the subject under discussion, or remain silent.

How difficult is that concept to grasp, Neocons? Ruthfulbarbarity 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! NBGPWS 05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Grasp this Ruth: (read it again Ruth, as you're not comprehending)

PW was supposed to take part in the rally you referenced on Sept 23.

CNS

News reports and Free Republic make no mention that any Protest Warriors actually showed up. They mention ALL the other groups that said they would take part, but not Protest Warrior. Is this because, yet again, Protest Warrior failed to attend another 'operation' due to lack of support?

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707240/posts?q=1&&page=1 Free Republic]

Wash Times

Where ARE the after-action reports and pictures from the Protest Warriors - of this event that they were supposed to take part in?

WHY ARE THERE NO REPORTS OF PW'S ACTUALLY BEING THERE? ONLY SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE THERE, AND FROM ALL REPORTS, NOT SHOWING UP?

Do I need to repost - yet again - your candid admission that a PW counterprotest FOR THE ENTIRE NYC/NJ REGION would likely consist of ONLY YOU? I can, if you'd like! NBGPWS 05:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS: Please do not use article talk pages as a soapbox for any point of view. Using inflammatory language as you have in the above post detracts from the healthy contributing environment at the Wikipedia project. In the future, please either couch what you have to say in civil terms or do not put them forward. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PSHAW! In light of being told "Are being this obtuse unintentionally, or by design?" and "Either apprise yourself of the facts before pontificating upon things of which you know absolutely nothing-by all evidence-or cease to comment upon this subject." my vociferous response pointing out the obvious (that there are no reports of any Protest Warriors actually showing up at the 9/23 protests) a fact that I had to repeat three times, and still was never addressed, was not unwarranted, IMHO. NBGPWS 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. You have been inflammatory while carefully stepping to not violate WP:NPA. Wikipedia's civility guidelines apply to you just as any other editor. Both sides in the disputes on this talk page have trolled in the course of its development. As such I have warned the major transgressors that WP:CIVIL is not optional. Take that as you will; I will be watching this debate for any further attempts at baiting, trolling, or soapboxing. Keep the discussion on here civil and do not resort to expressing concerns in uncivil language and there will not be any problems. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Kuzaar - I've decided to move on from this article anyway, as I believe the current edit is pretty much as accurate as it can be with the paucity of recent WP:RS mentions of Protest Warrior in the news. I do take slight exception to the article referring to a claim by Kfier that no longer exists - that I feel shouldn't be included. That's not such a big deal though. I will keep an eye on this entry however. Thanks for your help here. NBGPWS 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My replies-which, considering the provocation, have been rather mild-were only in response to NBG's insistence upon posting misleading, inaccurate and/or tangential information designed to sidetrack this debate.

This after being warned-on repeated occasions-of his infractions.

He's also removed several warning templates posted to his talk page, which is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules.

I have no problem observing the constraints of Wikipedia's civility guidelines-and you'll notice that with the sole exception of NeoCons no other editors have had problems collaborating with one another on this article-but NBG is trying everyone's patience. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New link for the article?

I thought I was through here, but somone just emailed me with a new link.

Protest Warrior

Should this informative and entertaining content be added to the article? What do you PW's think? NBGPWS 07:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're trolling again. Sputnik is a pitiful loser, and an overly arrogant one too, if he thinks the forums being down has anything at all to do with him. Rogue 9 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Neocons,

1. Stop trolling. You were doing so well avoiding this page-for weeks-so I suggest that you continue to do so.

2. Stop removing warning templates from your user page. If you want to delete critical comments, that's fine, but what you are doing now constitutes vandalism. With your track record I think you want to keep your nose clean henceforth. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice to R9 and RB:

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. NBGPWS 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Finally there is a vocal group that defends the right of the southern states to secede at the start of the American Civil War and also supports at least in speech the dissolution of the United States of America to preserve true liberty." Did you write that, Ruthfulbarbarity??? If so, you took the Wiki suggestion to "be bold in your editing" to a new level! You still need to cite your sources though! NBGPWS 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would pay attention, you would see that the part in question was written by Hurrian22, not RB. diff Rogue 9 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification R9 - Most helpful! Maybe Ruthbar will rewrite it in the trademarked circumlocutory periphrastic style he's so well known for. NBGPWS 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't care if it was simply removed; while there are some members (whose numbers I could count on my fingers) who think that secession is a valid right, it's not an issue for the organization. Rogue 9 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PSHAW! PW's spent an inordinate amount of time discussing Lincoln and his alleged constitutional abuses. It's like you were fighting the whole Civil War over again! Sometimes I wondered if I was in the 'Daughters of the Confederacy' forum, not PW! Y'all don't have that problem anymore! ;-) NBGPWS 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so do you want it in the article or not? Make up your mind. As of now, it appears that you're disagreeing just to be contrary. Rogue 9 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

STOP DELETING YOUR WARNING TEMPLATES!!!

I'm writing in capitalized letters in order to emphasize just how irritating your willful disregard of almost every Wikipedia rule-including those dealing with user pages, civility and notability-is.

The next time you violate these rules it will inevitably result in procedural action from Wiki administrators, rest assured. 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ruthfulbarbarity (talk • contribs) .

Quit harassing me by leaving unmerited warning templates on my talk page, Ruthbar. Not a single one was appropriate or deserved. I will delete any and all I don't agree with. If you don't like it, take it to the authorities. Why are you so obsessed with me, anyway? Please find a new hobby. NBGPWS 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my final warning.

Do not remove warning templates from your user page again!

If you feel that they are unmerited, then take the issue up with a Wikipedia administrator.

You are not allowed to dictate what rules you will or will not abide by, just as you are not allowed to determine when your behavior does and does not violate concrete, clearly delineated Wikipedia guidelines.

And please sign your statements with four tildas in the future, Neocons. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit harassing me with unwarranted warnings on my talk page. I'll remove any I see fit to! NBGPWS 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is only for discussion of the article. Personal disagreements should be settled elsewhere. -Will Beback 04:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this user is intentionally and willfully attempting to distort this article and insert his own tendentious opinions into it. Ruthfulbarbarity 14:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion is patently untrue. NBGPWS 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That Sputnik Media guy is a hoot! I don't know many communists (assuming that's what he is) so they're a rare and treasured bird in my book but to see one with such a thick Tex-country accent is just a riot! Thanks for sharing. What is this guy's URL, anyway? I couldn't tell from the video. Lawyer2b 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. - This other clip from him is hilarious! Yo, da whiteboy in dis vid does one mean gangsta accent. (Almost as well as I do, yo!)

Re added notability warning

From notability:

• In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article with minimal errors, a topic must be notable enough that there will be non-partisan editors interested in editing it.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

Based on two out of the three criteria listed above, PW does not merit inclusion. Sorry folks. NBGPWS 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does as it has participated in a number of newsworthy events that have been covered by media outlets. Further, that participation is historical in nature so the current or future status of PW is not relevant to it's notability. --Tbeatty 09:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that you have bolded the items you don't think are being met, there ARE non-partisan editors willing to edit it. non-partisan doesn't not mean people who want to delete it or not delete, it means they can edit with a NPOV viewpoint. And for the third, it is not a criteria. It is a fact. Since PW meets inclusion requirements, it is obviously not indiscriminate. --Tbeatty 09:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not a non-partisan source to make that deterimination. I know for a fact that CAIR had never heard of Protest Warrior, for instance. If they were a 'notable' org they certainly would have. I'll make an RFC or something to get other peoples thoughts. Thanks for spurring me into action Ruthbar! NBGPWS 09:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not understanding the term 'Non-Partisan' as used by Wiki. It means, in this case, that an organization be of sufficient importance so that people who are not actively involved with the organization - either in support of - or in opposition to - would be interested in editing the article. PW fails the test. I'm so sorry, but that's the honest truth. NBGPWS 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not inolved in the organization in any way nor have I ever supported it. I believe that meets the criteria. --Tbeatty 21:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may point out, by your own criteria, you yourself are not a non-partisan source to make that determination either. Apply your standards uniformly or (preferably) stop trying to dictate how Wikipedia shall be run. Rogue 9 12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely true R9, and the reason I suggested proposing an RFC. With the exception of mediators who have been called here to settle disputes, every editor who has worked on this article since I arrived has been either a strong supporter or detractor of PW. The fact that PW is not sufficiently notable to attract uninvolved Wiki editors without strong Pro or Anti PW views is indisputable. NBGPWS 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neocons, stop the shenanigans.

You've already been blocked from editing this article five times and have received warnings too numerous to recount in any detail.

The more you engage in these antics the more likely it is that you will be prevented from editing this article in the future.

Wikipedia is not an anything goes message board or your private bailiwick, where you can choose to selectively abide by the rules or disregard them altogether. Ruthfulbarbarity 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Response not merited. NBGPWS 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS, your sincere and heartfelt apologies for exposing the article's apparent inability to satsify the notability guidelines are both noted and appreciated. What are we to do?! Perhaps, per the policy, you can help us establish its notability by finding more reliable sources to cite! Also, maybe you can help us find a flaw in your seemingly incontrovertible logic. I know that's doubtful but hopefully your sympathy can be parlayed into a self-examination. How about this logical conundrum as a start?

• Situation A: Per User:Rogue 9, you are a partisan and not in a position to be able to render an unbiased opinion on the matter.
• Situation B: You are, indeed, a non-partisan whose editing presence satisfies the requirement for neutrality.

Either way, the matter appears moot. Please do not let your brain overheat and emit smoke from your ears like the robot in I, Mudd who was told Mudd always spoke the truth only to have Mudd state, "I am lying." Lawyer2b 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My brain is quite cool - but thank you for your concern, L2B. I admit I am partisan, just like all the PW supporters working on the article. None of us are impartial judges of PW's notability, or non-notability. My thought was to do an RFC, so Wikipedians who have never HEARD of Protest Warrior, and have no vested interest in it, could weigh in with their objective opinions as to whether or not Protest Warrior is sufficiently notable for inclusion. NBGPWS 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, an RFC on any topic is welcomed at any time. Except, wasn't this matter brought before and decided one way or another, here?Lawyer2b 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a while ago though. You might be thinking of this fair and honest assessment from one of the few non-partisan, disinterested, uninvolved Wiki mods who have worked on this obscure and nugatory article:

"The issue with PW is that it's so non-notable to begin with. No major publication is going to report on it, and come to think of, nobody is going to read this article." Vpoko 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does that jog your memory, counselor?NBGPWS 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't remember that statement but Vpoko (and anybody else holding that opinion) is simply factually mistaken. As the article itself shows, the organization has been reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, CBS, et al. If the organization is not notable it is certainly not evidenced by a lack of coverage in mainstream national media; in fact, the coverage it has received supports its notability. Lawyer2b 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since he had studied PW's notability and was aware of those previous mentions, he must have meant: "The issue with PW is that it's so non-notable to begin with. No major publication is going to report on it" ANYMORE - not since its leaders abandoned the organization, and it no longer counter-protests on a regular basis, or in meaningful numbers." I'm sure that's what he meant. NBGPWS 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!" I think your already weak argument, unfortunately, looks even worse when the most supportive quote you have requires words tacked onto the end to make serve your purpose; but no matter. It sounds like you're saying that if an organization was reported in the national media for a period of time ceases to be reported, it should be candidate for reevaluating its notability? While your previous actions belie the assumption of good faith, I've always enjoyed humoring you and personally don't have a problem with an RFC to do that. Pray tell, how much time has passed since the organization has been reported and what type of an absence should indicate a reevaluation is in good order? Lawyer2b 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You know darn well that the article wouldn't have survived the AFD without dozens of meatpuppets recruited on Free Republic. Do I need to post the link? (thanks for the link to that AFD discussion, L2B, I had lost it) I think this comment sums things up rather well.

"Delete - Protest Warrior consists of very few people whatsoever. It claims to be global but offers no proof. Furthermore, it has videos on display with CLEARLY illustrate that it can mount counter-protests no larger than two dozen people. It is not global and it might have a few hundred people in it AT BEST. The forums are also incredibly small, with only a half dozen users on at any given time. It is NOT comparable to Free Republic or Democratic Underground forums. It's not worthy of anything, half the people ranting "keep" apparently are members and want attention. For God's sake, they managed to round up less than 30 people for a counter-protest at the Sept 24 March on Washington. How is it even an organization? My local PTA could put them to shame in comparable numbers. The attention mongers don't really deserve an article.--Grebrook 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)"

And even that post inflates PW's numbers by a factor of two! NBGPWS 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior's notability is not a matter for serious consideration at this late date, and the personal opinion of editors with respect to the organization has no bearing on its notability.

Leaving aside the fact that the notability of Protest Warrior has already been considered-and your criticisms dismissed by a substantial number of people involved in creating and monitoring this article-the extensive media coverage, on MSNBC and Fox News, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Savage Nation, as well as in the pages of the New York Times, Austin-American Statesman, Washington Post, National Review among many other notable magazines, newspapers and journals, should put this issue to rest.

I'm sorry Neo, but that dog just won't hunt, so I suggest that you bark up another tree. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Woof! NBGPWS 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm placing this template on the talk page-cognizant of the fact that it does not relate directly to the PW article-because NBG will-based upon precedent-in all likelihood remove it from his user page, where it belongs. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insert warnings intended for user talk pages on article talk pages. Additionally, please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

He hasn't removed the warning I affixed to his user page, so I removed the one above. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take Kuzaar's sage advice, especially that regarding personal attacks, to heart, Ruthbar. I would hate to see you get banned! NBGPWS 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The activity of PW has little to do with noteability. There are many groups still relevent to encyclopediac reference eith far less than the number of members PW has. Piuro 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please merge Kfir's article into PW

After reading many well known Conservative deletionist's views on the 'non notability' of Andy Stephenson, it's obvious that Kfir's article will not survive the onslaught of this group, many who are active here. Andy's life and work was about 100X as notable as Kfir's, so Kfir's article doesn't stand a chance!

Please merge Kfir's info into the PW article before it gets nominated for an AFD! There was a merge template there for months, but R9 removed it. I just put it back.

R9, was that an indication that you are about to AFD the article?

Thanks NBGPWS 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Andy who? Is he a follower of the great Kfir? Crockspot 17:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OFF THE RECORD (the point where I ask the court stenographer to stop typing)...Since it seems Kfir's notability revolves around Protest Warrior, I don't see a necessity for Kfir to have an article of his own. That being said, I'm not big on reducing the number of articles since it's so easy to get to them via hyperlinks and sometimes breaking up subjects makes them easier to read about/understand. (i.e. What's the benefit?) ON THE RECORD (you may start typing again)...I refuse to vote on this motion until its sponsor submits it with the parties' names correctly spelled.  :-) Lawyer2b 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah, he's not going to do it. He thinks that showing off his own total inability to spell makes the people he's referring to look stupid, rather than himself. Which doesn't make sense, but I suppose to one of his intelligence, it must seem a brilliant rhetorical maneuver. Rogue 9 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I personally dont agree with much that has been said by NBGPWS and I disagree completely his reasoning, but I have to support him in this suggestion. Kifr's noteability is very limited, and deserves probably a stub on the main PW gage, but certainly not his own article. Possibly a "Notible Members" section. And please R9, the proper response to personal attacks is not personal attacks. Piuro 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He has reasoning? I must have missed it.

In all seriousness, he's intentionally obtuse and it's been getting under my skin for months. He knows good and goddamned well that I wasn't about to AFD the article; I removed the merge tag because it had been there since April with no action taken, and I saw no reason for it to remain in that light. Rogue 9 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely. Despite his (NBGPWS's, not Kifr's)... "suspect" reasoning, I do believe that Kifr's article should be merged into protest warrior. Piuro 05:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I merged Kfir's article into PW

I merged Kfir's article into the PW article as discussed. Add some more content if you'd like. I am using Alan Davidson's legal name - the name he used for the first year of PW - with his pseudonym in parenthesis. I hope that's OK!

NBGPWS 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope y'all noticed that I spelled Kfir's name correctly. FINALLY! I must have had some kind of mental block against remembering how to spell it, or something! (plus RB REALLY likes to correct my spelling, so I hoped it would make him feel useful) Does anyone else think Kfir should call himself 'Kenny' or 'Kimba'? I always think Kafir whenever I see that name! What a curse NBGPWS 10:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cancelled that merge. Wikipedia operates on consensus, not whim — especially not the whim of people who think they are demonstrating their superior morality and intellect by making racist jokes.

If/when we establish consensus for the move, NBG, let someone competent do it. CWC(talk) 12:03, 24 October 2006

"Racist"? What in God's name are you talking about?? Consensus was reached in the section ABOVE!!! Please change back! You added the whole Protest Warrior article into Kfiers page! NBGPWS 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the merge aside from your desire to oppose everything NBG does? JBKramer 12:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not constitute a concensus. Piuro 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; the following was written before seeing Piuro's comment.)

When have I expressed any "desire to oppose everything NBG does"? (That is not a rhetorical question. I want an answer or an apology.)

I do not oppose the blanking of Kfir Alfia because NBG did it, I oppose it because it violates Wikipedia's rules.

"Is there a problem?" Well, I seem to recall mentioning consensus.

To reach consensus, you have to get people to agree about a specific proposal. Such discussion would necessarily involve deciding which parts of the Kfir article to merge.

The section above has no specific proposal and even the vague idea got consent from only 2 of the 5 editors who commented there. See also Talk:Kfir Alfia, which has 2 recent votes, JBKramer for merge and me against.

To the lack of consensus add: (2) Parts of the Kfir Alfia article were lost, without discussion. (3) I see no evidence for "Alan Davidson's legal name" here or in the article; it's been added without substantiation. (4) NBG has just admitted an explicit violation of WP:POINT. (5) NBG's racist "jokes" about Kfir do not inspire trust. (If NBG cannot see what is racist about his earlier comment, he's a very sad case.) (6) NBG's comment at 10:26 is an almost-explicit admission that he is trolling here.

We probably should fix the major defects in this article before doing any merge.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC

(That is not a rhetorical question. I want an answer or an apology.)' Ah Jeeeeeesuz, one of THOSE. I'm not trolling. I propsosed the merge after the merge template had been their for MONTHS with no dicussion or interest in Kfir's article. (Maybe because of his pusillanimous actions at Crawford, embrassing and shaming the org's good name, then abandoning, then closing the forums) Consensus was reached. Set up a shrine to him in your bedroom if you'd like CWC, but he's worthy of nothing more than a paragraph in the PW article at MOST. NBGPWS 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

CWC, Why don't you use your fondness of writing diatribes to flesh out Kfir's Wiki article! Maybe you can add childhood hobbies, favorite TV shows, his dog's name, favorite foods, his favorite color. Stuff you Kfir devotees think important, like what grammar school he went to, and his childhood reading habits! NBGPWS 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One other person agreeing that the article should be merged does not constitute "consensus."

I would suggest that you look up the definition of that term. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That "answer or apology" thing was directed to JBKramer. How interesting that NBG answers it. Also interesting: anyone who dislikes Kfir less than he does is a "devotee". Hmm, CWC(talk) 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For The Record

1. NBG is trolling. I don't feel the need to maintain a false charade of civility towards someone who will-in all likelihood-eventually be banned from editing Wikipedia for his gross violations of Wikipedia rules on repeated occasions.

2. I agree that the Kfir Alfia article should be merged into the Protest Warrior article-it is at the very least a substantial argument, IMO-but I have no faith in NBG's ability to do so, for the reasons enumerated above by other editors. Ruthfulbarbarity

I am willing to do the merger, if that is okay with people. I have absolutly no personal problems with the Protest Warriors whatsoever. Though it reflects badly on you, Ruthfulbarbarity, to mimic NBGPWS, and it undermines the extremes of his behavior. Please try and remain civil, though I understand you're feelings reguarding this. Piuro 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NBG has been banned for 1 month. That will give time to complete the merger. --Tbeatty 18:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but only a month? Piuro 20:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been changed to 24 hours. --Neverborn 06:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

48 hours, actually.

I left a comment on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page arguing the NBGPWS is a special-purpose troll account, and possibly a sock puppet. Others who edit here may want to join in that discussion. Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree that he is a sockpuppet or nessicarily a special troll account. I think he is a troll, but not created for that reason. I also think if he was a sockpuppet he would have abandoned that account months ago in an attempt to go unnoticed. Piuro 19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not a sock-puppet, although he has employed several of them in the past.

However, I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute the assertion that he is a troll, in light of his behavior. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not employing that term as an insult or flame, but simply as means of describing what he has been doing on a regular basis, i.e. trolling this page among others, since he has registered with this website.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe there was a trolling template at the beginning of this page prior to NBG's arrival. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Important message from User:MONGO at WP:ANI (emphasis added):

[NBGPWS] promised me he would be nice...so give him a chance and if the same patterns start up again, then the block will probably be reinstated. Nobody better be baiting him either as folks are usually hot anyway when they come off a block.

Common decency and Wikipedia rules require us to tread gently with NBG when he returns. Best wishes, CWC(talk) 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up, October 2006

I've done a quick clean-up of the article. I changed from HTML to wikisyntax in a few places, copyedited for style, removed some POV, etc. The article is not up to scratch yet, even I haven't made any goofs in this edit. We probably should restructure it with fewer headings, for one thing. We should add Billionaires for Bush and Communists for Kerry to the See also list.

I'll explain 3 of my changes in detail:

(1) I moved this sentence here:

Finally there is a vocal group that defends the right of the southern states to secede at the start of the American Civil War and also supports at least in speech the dissolution of the United States of America to preserve true liberty. <!-- (the extent for this may vary) //"may vary" is an arbitrary qualifier.-->

Folks, it is completely unacceptable to label even part of PW as pro-slavery with no freaking evidence!. (That is, if you have evidence that some PWers defend southern succession but not that they are pro-slavery, you can say that some PWers defend southern succession but you need to avoid any implication of racism. Of course, if you found evidence that PW leadership was knowingly tolerating members who spread racist propoganda via PW, that would be a different thing. (Incidentally, it is quite likely that some of the Racist Far-right would try to use PW as a recruiting ground; they use left-wing groups that way too.)

(2) Re numbers at RNC 2004: MTV quotes Alfia as saying "there's 200 of us" but has nothing else about how many were there at the time, so I went with 200.

(3) I removed some external links that were dead, outdated or "contain[ed] factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" (from WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #2).

Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand Communists For Kerry, but Billinaires for Bush bears no relation to Protest Warrior as far as I know, other than the fact that they might have crossed paths at the RNC. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of groups that use culture jamming or something similar — that is, making political points through subversive humor, looking at their method rather than their message. No big deal. CWC(talk) 00:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re numbers at RNC 2004: Derex is right and I was wrong. Kfir said "there's 200 of us" at the meeting on the evening before the protest, so that number is just a prediction. Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO

Several active editors of this page are either Protest Warrior members or have posted on the PW forums as critics. Please be mindful of WP:AUTO. "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved .... [or have] any other possible conflict of interest." It is a guideline, not policy, but it's worth keeping in mind. Thank you. Derex 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(yawn) You're welcome. Lawyer2b 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply, what do you mean by that? Derex 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my polite my way of saying, "Thanks for the tip but I think the biggest problem with this article is a certain editor who dislikes Protest Warrior(s) immensely, trolls constantly, has had to be blocked repeatedly, and makes frequent false allegations about the supposed bias in both the article and various editors' (myself included) activity and therefore a much more practical tip might be on how to deal with (remove?) the aforementioned editor." That's all.  :-) Lawyer2b 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the editor you referred to has a history of involvement at PW forums. The AUTO guideline applies equally there. I suspect this article would be in much better shape if all members of PW and all activists against it would respect the guideline. It's very difficult to be unbiased about a controversial organization of which you are a member, no matter how good your faith. If this organization truly is notable, I see no reason why editors who are not involved in real life wouldn't do a fine job editing it. If it's not notable enough to attract uninvolved editors, then there is a larger problem. Derex 01:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not involved in PW. (I think there is, or was, a PW chapter in Sydney, but that's nearly 1,000 miles away, and I haven't been there for over 10 years.)

It is quite OK for people involved with an organisation to edit an article about that organisation as long as they can achieve NPOV. All I the edits I have seen from Lawyer2b, Rogue9 and others were completely (um) "Wikipedic". BTW, I think Derex is also a real asset to Wikipedia, even if we're currently having a back-and-forth over that MTV report :-). Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we know who the members are? I'm not involved with them. It seems N has brought a relationship with PW people here. Who are they?--Tbeatty 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers; I'm just reminding people of the guideline. From what I've see at the mediation archive, N agreed with you (at least then) that L2b & R9 (both members?) have been neutral. Others he has an issue with. The mediator suggested that all involved parties who are in conflict should step away from the article. That suggestion is consistent with official wikipedia guidelines. Derex 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, yes technically, one could say I am a member of Protest Warrior. Partly because of that, I especially appreciate the acknowledgement of my neutrality with regards to editing the article. I also agree that NBGPWS seems to have brought in relationships with PWer's from outside wikipedia. I've never posted (and I don't remember ever really reading) any message on the Protest Warrior forums so I'm not one of them. Of note, one time when I indicated my total non-interest in the PW forums (without specifically stating "but I am a member of the organization") NBGPWS claimed I was deliberately misrepresenting myself and demanded I be banned from editing the article. My opinion is that 90% of NBGPWS' accusations are of similar merit. Be that as it may, depending upon how "conflict" is defined, I may totally disagree with asking parties involved in the "conflict" to not edit the article. For example, my opinion of User:NBGPWS is described above; am I in a conflict? If not, why not? Is it just because User:NBGPWS stopped launching baseless accusations at me when he saw I couldn't be sucked into making personal attacks? I'd hate to think my ability to edit hinges on someone else simply deciding I'm not worth the effort to try and antagonize. Lawyer2b 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah jeeez, I have to dredge up the actual quotes to defend myself again!

(comment directed to lawyer2b) When you have members and supporters of Protest Warrior (including yourself and some others) editing the article to fit their agenda including consistently deleting criticism of and adding information favorable to the group as well as rejecting sources critical of the group (all according to the plan discussed on the PW forum) then there is no point for me in using the talk page, is there? Wikipedia is not a soapbox, keep your propaganda at PW.com. Thank you. --Inahet 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(lawyer2b's response) I don't post on (or even read) PW.com and could care less what goes on there. (he's only a member! ed.) What I care about is the article's integrity and that wikipolicies are applied consistently and fairly. Saying the organization is racist appears to be original research. Your logic about not discussing things on the talk page appears to be expedient, since to apply it consistently should lead you to the additional conclusion that there is no point in your editing the article itself, should it not? Lawyer2b 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just let sleeping dogs lie. It's good to be back, and I hope you will welcome me noting that my new name is my only goal! Let bygones be bygones. Let's focus on editing to make Wiki better for all users.

I myself have taken a pledge. With important elections coming up, and politicians on both sides sinking to new levels of sleaze and smear tactics - I - Fairness And Accuracy For All - will rise above the muck and mire! I pledge to not enter ANY negative info, or any info which could even remotely be considered negative in the articles and even the talk pages of ANY candidate running for political office on Nov 7!

Anyone who would like to can join me and take the pledge! Fairness And Accuracy For All 09:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (ex NBGPWS)

Fair, I've always supported your efforts to "turn a new leaf", applaud this one as well, and will indeed "let sleeping dogs lie". Just so we're clear though, I was refering to the talk page discussion you created, entitled, "Lawyer2b should recuse himself from this article" Lawyer2b 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The exchange I posted above was what prompted me to suggest that you recuse yourself a few paragraphs later, but I don't think we need to hash this out all over again. I do however, urge anyone who mistakingly thinks or asserts that there was harmony here before I arrived to just read the archives. Starting with 1. Thanks for the welcome back. Fairness And Accuracy For All 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Edits

The exclusion of Kfirs quote was discussed at length with the assistance of a mod, and it was agreed that the quote could not be included under WP:RS, ( as a post to an internet forum) but his denial could be described. This was even when the forum was still operational. The forum and quote no longer exist in situ, but in the spirit of cooperation, I will not ask for the removal of the denial.

CWC, with all due respect, weren't you around during these discussions? If not, may I ask you to read archives 9 - 12, where many of these matters were discussed, and agreed to by consensus? Thanks. May I also ask why, in your edit, you removed the link to the actual article, but included a 'no wiki' link to the dead PW forum post where Kfir's denial no longer exists?

Relevent WP:RS

Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

Relevent discussion from archives:

Forum Posts and other primary source material from PW

Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (ex NBGPWS)

Arrgh! I left out the link! (Various curse words redacted.) Sorry about that, folks. What a stupid mistake to make!

No FAAFA, I wasn't around during those discussions. I stopped editing/watching PW for reasons I hope are now irrelevant. So I didn't know about that decision.

Minor point: it is in fact acceptable, and sometimes required, to use blog posts etc when they are known to come from the subject of the article (and in a few other limited situations).

Important point: Jimbo and other senior edits have tightened the WP:BLP policy up recently, and look set to tighten it further. Specifically:

• WP:BLP applies to all articles, not just biographical articles.
• Unsourced and poorly sourced controversial material is to be deleted immediately.

(BTW, those of us cynical enough to think that fear of lawsuits is driving this turn out to be wrong.)

If interested, see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons for details. (Lots of details.)

Back to the topic at hand: we'd better clarify the circumstances in which Kfir said he'd been misquoted. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO some of the best discussion about this article took place in Archive 2, between several editors who are no longer active on this article. One of them proposed adding this sentence. While Protest Warrior describes itself as 'exposing' the dangers of leftism, critics charge that by defining "leftism" with uncommon broadness and attributing extremist beliefs to the left in general, Protest Warrior is really engaging in straw man smearing of its opposition.' Would you guys take a look at this discussion and weigh in with your thoughts? Thanks. Archive two Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine as long as the critic is mentioned, saying critics think, without specifying who that critic is, is using weasel words. --NuclearZer0 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The following paragraph has been unsourced for months. Are you arguing that every claim which can't be sourced must be removed from the article?

"Most members also express opposition to illegal immigration[citation needed] and current immigration proposals of the Bush administration,[citation needed] support for free enterprise and fiscally conservative economics, general support and respect for U.S. military institutions as the "defenders of freedom", and support for Israel."

Just wondering. Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything stating a fact beyond a basic one should normally be sourced, you may want to review all sources before removing anything as sometimes a source at one point in the article covers something that was moved and not re-cited. But yes citations are something I do not kid about, anything unsourced that remains unsourced that isnt easily verifiable should be removed. Comments like most members are weasel words unless cited back to a source where someone else reported it as such, then the paragraph should read for example: "The Post reports that most Protest Warrior members support XYZ." Or if its part of the groups founding principles that the group supports those things it should be listed as such for example by simply stating "The Protest Warriors believe in XYZ", as by being a member you are adhearing to what thye state are their beliefs when spoken about in context of the group. Hope that helps. Again just check sources as items are often moved and seperated from their sources, I have never actually seen someone move a sentence and the coresponding source, creating some odd citations in articles. --NuclearZer0 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what I see to be the problem though. Yes, PW had some mentions in the MSM, but not enough so the claims above can EVER be sourced. (unless it gets lots more coverage) Nor claims about what The Left finds objectionable to PW. Isn't this where we work together to try and find common ground? Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. It's hard to believe that PW never got hostile editorial coverage in the MSM, but there's none here.

And, I'm afraid, when I say none, I mean exactly that. That Salt Lake City Weekly link is a gossip column or a blog. (Note it's lede sentence: "After finally getting around to viewing Napoleon Dynamite at the local theater ...".) That's not allowed as an EL.

In related news, the criticism section is kinda empty at the moment. As I mentioned before, I stopped watching this page for a while. I was really suprised a few days ago by how empty that section is. Is there any chance we could find something appropriate to put there? Would it be appropriate to use the Salt Lake City Weekly item in that section? In my understanding of Wikipedia rules, it is OK to have statements like (deliberately silly example) "John Doe says PW is harming the forests by using wood for their signs", assuming appropriate citation etc. Comments, anyone?

On further thought, I will work the Salt Lake City Weekly item into the criticism section, unless some-one objects.

Cheers, CWC

Check the links you deleted. PW got criticism for its confusing and confrontational signs, which indeed is the reason they got atacked in Crawford. Check the WAPO article about the 2004 inauguration too. Fairness And Accuracy For All 14:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh show [3]. Mainstream coverage includes The Washington Post ([4]) and Newsweek ([5]). Also covered by The Washington Times ([6]), the Dallas Observer ([7]) and FrontPageMag.com ([8]) Dallas Observer mentions they were on Air America, you can also search fox news for Alfia and get one article and protest warrior for another, so they were 2x covered there. I believe I added one of the fox stories already to this article. Of those Dallas Observer covers the Air America criticism from the hosts that interviewed them. Some of the others are critical I believe that their message is confusing, anyway all good sources that should be introduced. --NuclearZer0 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CWC I added the SC Weekly link that you deleted. The leadin sentence which has nothing to do with the subject in no way disounts this from being an editorial, and is a common technique in writing. I'll show some examples of this from major conservative pundits if you'd like. In the meantime, please leave it in. You're claiming that sentence is NOT ALLOWED in an editorial? Fairness And Accuracy For All 14:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)