Debate:Rob, Ames, and the development of Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons

Something about Fred Phelps and Ames
Hey Dick, can you do anything about this: Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F? those additions to Conservaleaks shed light on the Phelps-is-liberal controversy and how it came about. nobsdon't bother me 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just looked through those, and I'm not sure what you want me to do. The conversation you had with Ames is a lot like the one we sort of had (if you can call one person making a logical argument and another responding with irrelevancies and lame sophistry a "conversation"; and no, I'm not Ames), and in your messages to TK you admit the whole Phelps/liberal thing is a bit of trolling, and even discuss upping the ante by adding Westboro to "liberal organizations" just to piss people off. Yeah, there's a trusworthy encyclopedia for you - oh, and you were never on good terms with TK, were you. Not sure what the point here is other than purposefully showing off what a liar you are. So be it. DickTurpis (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to negotiate a settlement with Ames. I laid the terms. Ames kept running socks & other bad faith bullshit to push his POV. So what was I to do, get out the vaseline? There you have it. After lo these many years, we could have had a settlement (which I wanted), but Ames hardheadedness and cp:deceit has kept the Phelops-is-a-liberal article enshrined to this day. Now, why should his lack of goodfaith be deleted & oversighted? He leaked the same emails -- without my consent -- 4 years ago. Why should these simple facts be covered up inv Rationalwiki 2.0? Why now?  I'd still be in terested in  a settlement, some people keep playing these games.  nobsdon't bother me 05:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And it has fuck-all to do with anything. However, your admission that CP keeps the "Phelps is a liberal" comment out of spite, is illuminating. No wonder you're the laughing stock of the internet. -- PsyGremlin  11:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: "Hey, you have a factual error? Can't do nothin' about it."

 * Honestly, Rob, the amount of pettiness you display is amazing. "Negotiate a settlement"? You need to negotiate with a random guy on the internet to remove a blatant error and smear in an article (a smear on liberalism, not Phelps)? Can you imagine Wikipedia doing this? "Hey, you have a factual error in an article", "Well, you're being a dick about it, so now it has to stay. Can't do nothin' about it." That why Wikipedia has, you know, credibility. I think I can speak for Ames when I say it doesn't really matter to anyone if CP labels Phelps a liberal. It has no more effect on anyone's thinking than someone scrawling "Obama is a fag" on a random bathroom stall. I basically wanted to hear your defense of it, and try get you to admit that he isn't a liberal and the label is kept out of spite. Having done that I'm satisfied, and as a bonus I get a tacit admission that you don't care about writing a trusworthy encyclopedia but really just want to make sure the liberals don't get their way. I consider the matter closed. DickTurpis (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor illustration. Let's look at two examples. (1) Daniel Brandt:
 *  Can you imagine Wikipedia doing this? "Hey, you have a factual error in an article", "Well, you're being a dick about it, so now it has to stay. Can't do nothin' about it."

and (2) WP User:TK-CP: nobsdon't bother me 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I figured you'd sneak the Berlet/Brandt situation back into the discussion. My take on the CP article is merely tl;dr (I thought CP articles were supposed to be concise). I remember discussing this with you quite a bit some time back, and I don't think I ever got a answer out of you about what this libelous information was. All I recall you getting bent out of shape about was Jimbo said that Brandt wasn't an expert. Hardly slander. I recall this controversy a bit on WP, but never paid much attention to it. It seems Brandt didn't like his WP bio and kept trying to get it deleted, on the basis that he was not notable. It eventually did get deleted, but unless you can pinpoint specific libel in the article when it existed then this isn't any more than a debate about notability. In any case, this is far from the "let's add a bunch of stuff to piss off people at RationalWiki" M.O. that you admit at CP. Can you pinpoint anyone at WP saying to Brandt "I'd love to be able to remove obvious slander from your article, but I can't until you give me something in return"? As for TK getting his knickers in a twist about his real name being outed (which he willingly gave to Stephanie Simon), I don't see how not giving a shit about the whining of a random troll is relevant. DickTurpis (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Brandt was concerned about references relating to the legal disposition of his anti-draft activities (although Pres. Jimmy Carter eventually granted a full amnsety); (b) the multiple policy violations here explained here; (c) Jimbo's public statements. The claim cannot be made Jimbo, the Foundation, the Foundation General Councel, and WP admins did not know Brandt wanted his information deleted. See the first edit summary on the WP:BLP page, "Because of the Daniel Brandt situation." See also/  nobsdon't bother me 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there. You have (a) something Brandt didn't want in the article on him, but apparently wasn't libel; (b) one apparent edit with no context in which Berlet apparently takes some accusation about Brandt and changes it from a fact to his opinion, which, if anything, removes potential libel. Also some editor leaving Brandt's criticism of Berlet in Berlet's article, which, if anything, is damaging to Berlet, not Brandt; and (c) you don't cite Jimbo's public statements, but I believe you previously mentioned Jimbo saying he didn't consider Brandt a reliable source, and that's utterly insignificant. Basically, Brandt wanted his article deleted, but Wikipedia doesn't delete articles on the request of their subjects, for obvious reasons. If there was libel in the article, say what it was. So far you haven't been able to point out anything, though you have an extremely long article doing it. DickTurpis (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) The agrieved party recieved a conviction for draft evasion, but was amnestied by Pres. Carter. There is a potential for both financial and legal damages; (b) allegations the agrieved party was "promoting alliances" with fascist groups likewise has the potential for both financial and legal damages as the result of slander and defamation; the full text in CP reads,
 * Berlet User:Cberlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.

(c) Jimbo chooses sides, excerpted,
 * ''Jimmy Wales responded to questions from Editor & Publisher in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying, “ I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. ..." ...Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) ...an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source... 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment ... 3) Wales comments added undue weight[55] (WP:UNDUE)...

(d) here's the first edit to BLP, I started this due to the Daniel Brandt situation (e) copy of Brandt Cease and Desist order sent to Brad Patrick, Wikmedia Foundation General Counsel; contains allegation Brandt was libeled by Mark Pellegrini, an authorized agent of the Foundation. nobsdon't bother me 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still see nothing. If Brandt was convicted and pardoned, saying so in an article is certainly not libel. The whole bit about allegations of associations with fascist groups could fit the bill, but the issue seems to be whether Berlet is a reliable source, which isn't exactly the sort of thing I feel like getting into. So, Jimbo said he didn't consider Brandt a reliable source on anything. Wow. Whoop-de-fucking-do. You know, Ron, I don't consider you a reliable source on anything at all. Oh! The slander! Sue me, sue me! (And undue weight? What the fuck are you talking about?) As for the one aspect that sounded like it might be significant, the cease and desist order, well, that has to do with linkspamming and has nothing to do with this at all, except that Brandt's name is on it. This is just plain sad. None of it is comparable at all to the conniving of you and TK to make sure Conservapedia's primary focus is to piss of RationalWiki. Way to go. DickTurpis (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here's much the point, Brandt didn't want his personal life details posted somewhere where guys like you and me can debate whether or not malicious or slanderous rumors may or may not cause a person financial damages or emotional harm. I've said too much, already. And both Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Dramatica have seen Brandt's POV, and have deleted his bio entries. Calling someone a fascist is not potentially libelous? someone who heads 501(c)3? Jimbo does not command the same mindless robot admins who suck-up & kiss ass to his every whim (same as you say of Andy)? Jimbo can bypass written policy declarations arrived at by community concensus, and declare who he considers reputable & reliable, and who he does not consider reliable, and they are blacklisted, banned, barred, and slandered without recourse? nobsdon't bother me 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So Brandt didn't want his personal life covered in his WP bio. Great, but tons of people can say that; it doesn't mean it gets expunged. Brandt was always a borderline case in terms of notability, and decent arguments could be made that he did or did not warrant an article. Once someone has one they do not get to dictate what is covered in it, and cannot automatically remove anything which could potentially make them look bad. Saying he has associations with groups that may have fascist sympathies could potentially be libelous, but it would have to be untrue. Did he defend a holocaust denial group? If so, it'd be very difficult to make a case that he was libeled. Like I said, whether or not Berlet is a reliable source appears to be what this hinges on, and that's an issue I'm not about to bother exploring. The rest of your rambling is more crap without substance. Jimbo said he doesn't think Berlet is a reliable source, and you try to turn that into a personal attack, a blacklist, and libel all in one. It is none of those. Mountains out of molehills. Considering Conservaedpia is a tiny fraction the size of WP, yet has a generous dose of libel, you should worry more about what happens there. DickTurpis (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: without discussing details, the question can be seen in that pior to Brandt, WP had no policy governing Biographies of Living Persons. Now it has. The policy esentially states, err on the side of caution. Also, Brandt did sucessfully get WP to delete his bio, and the question in WP to this day is similiar the FBI incident in CP, best not to mention the name Brandt anywhere in WP. As to the fascist allegations, it was something like Brandt had a cousin who used to live next door to a guy whose grandfather may have worked somewhere where a fascist sympathizer was also employed. A typical Berletism. Jimbo said Brandt was not a reliable source (damn the policy provisions), and backed Berlet. It backfired on Jimbo, Berlet, Wikipedia, the Cabal, and Admin Community. They learned a few valuable lessons, and WP is much the better for it today. nobsdon't bother me 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize Wikipedia's BLP policy was not in place at the time you're discussing, and while Brandt may have been a catalyst for such a policy, it was the Seigenthaler matter that really made it a priority. Likewise Brandt's bio was eventually deleted, though I think that was more of a matter of WP taking a slightly more deletionist stance on notability in general than anything else. I recall many examples of articles which were nominated for deletion 5 or 6 years ago and were kept, presumably under the notion that they had what appeared to be facts in them, and removing them would be censorship, only to be renominated a few years later and deleted without controversy. I credit evolving standards of what is encyclopedic more than any conspiracy on anyone's part. Anyway, as I said, I know nothing about these fascist allegations, except that Berlet seemed to claim that Brandt was involved in defending some holocaust deniers. If this is entirely untrue, then yes, it seems to have been libel that should have been removed as soon as its veracity was seriously called into question. If it is true then claims of libel would be substantially harder to make. And again, you dwell on Jimbo's haphazard comment that Brandt should not be cited as a reliable source on Wikipedia as some sort of attack on the guy, when it is really a statement of fact; random guys are not reliable sources. That's just common sense. CP should take a page out of Jimbo's book there: random online idiot should not be quoted as a reliable source simply because he agrees with what you believe (Joseph Farah, I am looking at you). You're still far from proving some huge conspiracy to slander Brandt. DickTurpis (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, shouldn't you take this up somewhere where people can do something about it? I see a lot of Wikipedia links in this word salad, and very little about RW. P-Foster (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Ames had only edited once in the past 2 years. Not exactly very active anymore. ТyUser_talk:Ty 12:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not seen Ames for bloody ages. I should visit his blog and stick a boot up his ass to see how he's doing. ADK ...I'll discombobulate your hobgoblin! 12:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps now that the usual suspect for encouraging the inmates to harass Ames in his real life is dead Ames will consider reactivating Geata Gayda  Gaius Caius. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

New York Board of Elections

 * Speaking of Ames, last I heard he was, ahhemm, observing New York Board of Elections ballot box stuffing activities. Now in the contest of who's lying, Donald Trump or the New York Board of Elections?, Trump wins, hands down. I don't see how this can be anything but a huge win for Trump. nobsdon't bother me 01:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus Fucking Christ, I know I'm going to regret wading into this wormhole of stupidity but, Rob, what the fuck are you on about now? You've linked to a fucking comment on a random site (not even a fucking blog), and even that seems to support the opposite point you're trying to make. What in the name of fuck is wrong with your brain? DickTurpis (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The non-sequiter begins with Ames and the New York Board of Elections; then it moves to the recent hit piece in the press sourced to the New York Board of Elections, that Donald Trump has not voted in 21 years, and Trumps rebuttal that it's bullshit. So, the question facing America is, "Who is telling the truth, the New York Board of Elections? Or Donald Trump?" You would think the Board of Elections would have no problem keeping track of registered Republicans in New York City, all three of them. But evidently not. Trump says the New York Board of Elections is a lying piece of shit. I don' see how this cannot be anything but a win for Trump, nationwide.  nobsdon't bother me 02:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And, of course, you don't link to any of that. You do link to a comment by a random guy on some site claiming that records show Trump hasn't voted in a primary election in 21 years. I don't know what this has to do with Ames or anything else for that matter. The same guy quotes Trump's response being that he voted in all the general elections in that period, but that wasn't the issue. Why Trump's record of voting in primaries is terribly relevant is beyond me, except that it could be used as an argument that he's only a Republican when it's convenient. If you want to link to an actual site or news story about this that might help. Instead you've taken the equivalent of a youtube comment and tried to make a case out of it. Epic fail once again. DickTurpis (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ames says of himself: Special counsel to Assemblymember [redacted] Subcommittee on Election Day Operations & Voter Disenfranchisement; or, more simply put, legislative director for election law reform.
 * CBS News reports: N.Y.C. elections board says potential GOP candidate has skipped primaries over two decades; Trump denies he also missed '02 general election
 * Question 1: Since when do Election Boards make individuals voting records public?
 * Question 2: Who or what prompted the Board of Elections to make this information public?
 * Question 3: Whose version of facts is correct, Trump or the Board of Elections?
 * Question 4 Who has a better reputation for honesty and integrity, Trump or the Board of Elections? nobsdon't bother me 03:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you posted a somewhat relevant link that time, rather than the political equivalent of a tween's tweets, but still, what are you arguing? Let's examine:
 * Ames: don't know what the deal is here. How being [Ames' job] a year ago relates to some guy pointing out that Trump hasn't voted in a primary in a while is beyond me. Grasping at straws there. As for election boards, I believe the information about who voted when is public. Of course, how they voted is secret. This is nothing new or novel. Furthermore, it seems Trump has not contradicted the Board of Election's statement; he defended himself by pointing out that he has voted in almost every general election in he past several decades. He didn't seem to contradict statements about his record in primary elections. I'll take question #4 s rhetorical, but I'll add that I hardly think Trump is a paragon of honesty and integrity. Again, what is your point, and what does any of this have to do with Ames? DickTurpis (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the Legislative Director for Election Law Reform overseeing the New York Board of Elections, let's get him here and ask how does a state agency makes a public release of information like this? Is this a response to a request from a news organization or other outside agency (if so, why didn't CBS or AP report who asked for the information from the Board?); or is this another politically motivated hit, abuse of power, and violation of privacy rights by rogue civil servants, as in the Joe the Plumber scandal? nobsdon't bother me 05:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Legislative Director for Election Law Reform overseeing the New York Board of Elections"? Where did you get that? According to his CV, Ames worked for an Assemblyman's subcommittee, which dealt with "Election Day operations" and "voter disenfranchisement". Pretty vague, and how you went from that to Director overseeing the NY Board of Elections is beyond me (okay, it's not beyond me, I've had ample experience dealing with you to know that understanding what you read is not one of your strong points). In any case, unless I'm wrong, this sort of information is public. When you vote, it becomes part of the public record. Who you voted for is, of course, secret. I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of revelations in the past about candidates' voting history, with emphasis on those who didn't vote terribly often, so this is far from new. Again, if I'm wrong, and this is private information that has been leaked, please provide evidence. As of now you seem to be making libelous statements against Ames, accusing him of leaking private information to the press for political purposes. Back it up or shit the fuck up. Anyway, whether Trump did or did not vote in certain past primaries is hardly a career-ending scandal. this has nothing to do with Ames, though I feel i should try to inform him that you're basically slandering him.
 * Oh, and Andy Schlafly puts gerbils in his ass for sexual gratification. I have this on good authority. DickTurpis (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The LinkIn is Ames own words about himself, "'''more simply put, legislative director for election law reform." That's the title he gives himself. nobsdon't bother me 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ambiguous as to whether that refers to himself or the assemblyman he worked for (I'd guess the latter, or else Ames might be suffering from delusions of grandeur, but I can't say). In any case, there is a difference between legislative director of election law reform, which it seems would be the main person in the Assembly who brings bills calling for reforming election laws to the table, and the person who oversees the entire NY Board of Elections, which is a different thing entirely. A different branch of government, I'll warrant. You see, one proposes new laws, one oversees all elections. Not the same thing. Ames doesn't even mention the NY Board of Elections in his CV. I realize reading is difficult for you, but you really need to work on this; you're never going to succeed in business if your reading comprehension remains at a 4th grade level.
 * Now, do you have any evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part, or did someone just publicize some public information? So far the only thing Trump has contradicted is that he voted in the 2002 general election, though apparently the records state otherwise. This is a very small point which is not about to make big headlines, and it isn't about to make the slightest glitch in Trump's ratings. And while I'm sure Ames, in his position of authority overseeing every election that was ever held in New York State, leaked this information confident it would be the glancing blow that would finish Trump's political career, it looks like he's in for some disappointment. DickTurpis (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob! There's a name I haven't thought about in a year or so. More, really! Anyways, I was alerted to this discussion by a friend, one of the above. Rob, I'd really appreciate if you not attribute to me things I didn't do, or speculate on how my work, which I take very seriously and perform with fairness and integrity, relates to your causes du jour. Please do not, for example, speak ill of people who I respect, and with whom I remain friends.

I cannot speak on the integrity of the New York voter registration system, or whether it would ever experience some glitch. I expect it would not. The City Board would probably be able to address your concern (if anyone).

Also, please remember that a lawyer's personal views are not those of his client, unless explicitly stated otherwise. And that I'm seriously nowhere near as influential as you think I am. Nowhere NEAR!

I'm thankful for the friends who've defended me above and argued the very same points :).- 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to add, Rob, we used to argue about things on the internet, like three years ago. That was fun! Please don't carry it beyond that.- 04:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "...fairness and integrity..." I'll thank you not to use words Rob doesn't understand. --Kels (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh My God Rob!
Give it up. No-one cares about any of this. Please, for sake of your health, find something else to write about. DamoHi 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)