Wickedpedia reported to IRS for violating non-profit status
I have mailed in fraud reports on Wikipedia to two locations -- in Fresno, CA and Dallas, TX. I used IRS Form 3949A (euphemistically titled "Information Referral"). I got the Fresno address from the back of the form and the Dallas address by calling the IRS. The IRS may or may not do something -- I don't know. My experience with government bureaucrats is that they won't do anything unless they get a lot of bad publicity. Of course, the more help I get from others, the greater the chance that the IRS will do something.
I reported that Wikipedia is violating its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status by not allowing rebuttals to attack ads posted on the biography of a candidate in a public election, Cheri Yecke. This is prohibited partisan political campaigning.
Please, nobody else send in another fraud report -- it is not necessary and may cause the IRS to duplicate its efforts (if you insist on sending one in, please note that it duplicates my report).
Wickedpedia has a rule against using personal blogs as sources, but on Yecke's bio Wicked is breaking this rule for some blogs but not for mine. Wicked's excuse for this discrimination is that my blog is "crappy" whereas the other blogs are "reputable" and "very notable." They are welcome to call my blog "crappy" all they want but they are not welcome to use that designation to discriminate against my blog or as a basis for violating their IRS status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against arbitrary censorship of rebuttals.
Unfortunately, Cheri Yecke tells me she is very sick -- she has been off from work for some time -- and hence it is very difficult for her to help herself. However, I don't see why she can't get others to help her, e.g., ReputationDefender.com or an attorney.
I am also contacting ReputationDefender to see if they are willing to help me -- I feel that my reputation is at stake here too. The problem is that they do not yet officially offer their $29.95 clean-up service to those who don't subscribe to their monthly Internet search report service.
I may very well win this one. Remember -- every dog has his day.
I reported that Wikipedia is violating its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status by not allowing rebuttals to attack ads posted on the biography of a candidate in a public election, Cheri Yecke. This is prohibited partisan political campaigning.
Please, nobody else send in another fraud report -- it is not necessary and may cause the IRS to duplicate its efforts (if you insist on sending one in, please note that it duplicates my report).
Wickedpedia has a rule against using personal blogs as sources, but on Yecke's bio Wicked is breaking this rule for some blogs but not for mine. Wicked's excuse for this discrimination is that my blog is "crappy" whereas the other blogs are "reputable" and "very notable." They are welcome to call my blog "crappy" all they want but they are not welcome to use that designation to discriminate against my blog or as a basis for violating their IRS status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against arbitrary censorship of rebuttals.
Unfortunately, Cheri Yecke tells me she is very sick -- she has been off from work for some time -- and hence it is very difficult for her to help herself. However, I don't see why she can't get others to help her, e.g., ReputationDefender.com or an attorney.
I am also contacting ReputationDefender to see if they are willing to help me -- I feel that my reputation is at stake here too. The problem is that they do not yet officially offer their $29.95 clean-up service to those who don't subscribe to their monthly Internet search report service.
I may very well win this one. Remember -- every dog has his day.
Labels: Cheri Yecke #2, Wikipedia
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/22/2007 03:44:00 AM
27 Comments:
This wouldn't have anything to do with a vendetta for being banned from Wikipedia, would it?
Because its nonsense. Wikipedia is not violating any campaign laws or tax laws.
>>>>> Wikipedia is not violating any campaign laws or tax laws. <<<<<<
I've been over this already. The IRS says that a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization may engage in voter education activities only in a non-partisan manner. Censorship of rebuttals of criticisms of a candidate is not non-partisan. See the links in my original post.
There's no violation. Nice try. BTW, frivolous reports are a bad thing.
>>>>> There's no violation. Nice try. <<<<<
You didn't even try to rebut my explanation as to why there is a violation here, so it can't be said that you made any try at all, nice or otherwise.
>>>>>> BTW, frivolous reports are a bad thing. <<<<<<<
Not here. The IRS says that they even accept anonymously submitted fraud reports, so the IRS doesn't care whether the reports are frivolous or not.
You are just a big bag of hot air. You lousy Darwinists think that you automatically win arguments just by submitting comments.
And lousy denialists think that you automatically win arguments just by submitting frivoulous complaints. I'll take clue for 100, Larry.
>>I feel that my reputation is at stake here too.<<
Clearly Larry being banned from Wikipedia has everything to do with his filing a complaint.
The nice thing about all this, all his blog postings about Wikipedia, his history there leading to his being permanently banned, this filing, is that it documents a pattern of harassment of Wikipedia. A pattern which would be actionable, were he not such non-notable, low-wattage dim bulb.
>>>>> And lousy denialists think that you automatically win arguments just by submitting frivoulous complaints. <<<<<<
If I were like you jerks, I would just send the IRS a fraud report claiming that Wikipedia is violating its 501(c)(3) status and then say, "I'll let you guys figure out where and how."
>>>>>> The nice thing about all this, all his blog postings about Wikipedia, his history there leading to his being permanently banned, this filing, is that it documents a pattern of harassment of Wikipedia. <<<<<<
My "harassment" of Wikipedia is not a violation of IRS rules -- Wikipedia's engaging in partisan political campaigning is. Wikipedia cannot defend its actions by claiming that I have been "harassing" them. And under the circumstances, my harassment of them was certainly justified, anyway. As the Earl of Kent said in King Lear, "anger hath a privilege." I am not going to make any apologizes to jerks who tried to excuse discrimination against my blog by calling it "crappy."
Thanks for filing the complaint, Larry. It seems to be well-justified.
Encyclopedias commonly print a lot of slanted and/or erroneous stuff, but getting involved in a political campaign goes pretty far, for an alleged "nonprofit."
Incidentally, I'm not: a conservative, a Republican, a creationist, or a Christian; etc. etc. But I wish Yecke well in this one.
Thanks for your support, Jim.
I don't need to show that anything in the bio is untrue -- all I need to show is that my rebuttal was censored, and that is easy to do.
Wickedpedia is involved in this at the highest level -- Wickedpedia founder "King Jimbo" Wales himself started directing the editing.
>>>>Cheri Yecke tells me she is very sick<<<<
I can totally understand why. Just knowing Deputy Fife, er, Larry Fafarman is on the job looking after your interests would be enough to make even the most robust feel more than a bit peaked and unwell.
You see, given Larry's history and reputation across the blogosphere and now at Wikipedia, poor Yecke is going to need a lot more than ReputationDefender to undo the damage his disruptive defense, which now apparently has extended to filing false claims with the Federal government, will do to her campaign by its association with someone such as him.
I mean its perfect for those who run the windmill Larry is busy jousting. Having Larry escalate at every setback plays into their hand nicely. While many ID peddlers slouch toward a terminal funk of hebetude and sloth, Larry races heedlessly forward in his calumnious schemes. But at what cost? To him, likely none. I doubt the IRS bothers to swat every clown that misuses the system with vexatious filings. But Yecke is a different matter; she's running for office.
Yecke claims she's no supporter of ID. The last person she'd want carrying her wobbly spear into battle is someone known as a vocal Intelligent Design internet crank. Those were the words that the Wikipedia admin used to describe you, aren't they Larry? Frankly you're the worst nightmare of someone who just wants to downplay and erase their history of supporting ID.
All I can say is nice job and keep up the good work, Larry. May the Cheri Yeckes of this world all have equally hebetudinous and tendentious malcontents such as you to defend them. And thanks for the laughs.
> they are not welcome to use that designation (crappy) to discriminate against my blog <
They are not discriminating against your blog because of their designation. They are discriminating against it because it is indeed crappy.
> or as a basis for violating their IRS status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. <
Which of course, they are not doing.
> The IRS says that a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization may engage in voter education activities only in a non-partisan manner. <
It would be a stretch to call it "voter education" and they seem to be non-partisan. Telling the truth is not partisan.
> Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against arbitrary censorship of rebuttals.<
1. They have not requirement to post rebuttals at all.
2. Their censorship is not arbitrary. As far as I have seen, you have never been censored arbitrarily.
> However, I don't see why she can't get others to help her, e.g., ReputationDefender.com or an attorney. <
You don't seem to understand what ReputationDefender.com's purpose is. As for getting an attorney, no attorney worth his salt would touch this case.
> I am also contacting ReputationDefender to see if they are willing to help me <
I can see it coming -- You will try to sue them too.
> I feel that my reputation is at stake here too. <
Your reputation is that of a lunatic. I can't see what would change that.
> The problem is that they do not yet officially offer their $29.95 clean-up service to those who don't subscribe to their monthly Internet search report service. <
And as an unemployable derelict, you can't afford it.
> I may very well win this one. <
I would give 10 to 1 that you won't.
> Remember -- every dog has his day. <
That doesn't necessarily extend to lower primates such as yourself.
>>>>>> They are not discriminating against your blog because of their designation. They are discriminating against it because it is indeed crappy. <<<<<
Are you really so dumb as to think you're funny? Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be euthanized -- not merely sterilized -- to dramatically speed up the improvement of the human race.
It's like this, dunghill. Calling a blog "crappy" is an impermissible basis for discrimination because this designation can be used against any blog that the Wickedpedians disagree with.
>>>>>> It would be a stretch to call it "voter education" and they seem to be non-partisan. <<<<<<
What in the hell would you call "voter education"? Do you think voters go to school to learn about the candidates and issues? It's "voter education" within the IRS's broad meaning of that term. The IRS means the term to include "public forums," and that includes Wikipedia. The IRS said,
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity.
>>>>>>> Telling the truth is not partisan. <<<<<<
But not allowing rebuttals of criticisms of a candidate -- whether those criticisms are true or not -- is partisan. I have been over this many times already and you are just too dumb to absorb it.
> Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be euthanized <
Under the holocaust, which you deny occurred, as an ethnic Jew you would have gone up the chimney whether or not you practiced that religion.
> Calling a blog "crappy" is an impermissible basis for discrimination <
You can't be that dumb. As I stated, you were not discriminated against because they classified your blog as "crappy". You were discriminated because your blog is, in fact, crappy.
> What in the hell would you call "voter education"? Do you think voters go to school to learn about the candidates and issues? <
The candidates birth certificates, and for that matter, the phone book (if they have listed numbers) give factual information and they are not considered "voter education".
> It's "voter education" within the IRS's broad meaning of that term. <
You believe this. It seems that the rest of the world believes otherwise.
> The IRS means the term to include "public forums," and that includes Wikipedia. The IRS said, <
Show me where the IRS mentioned Wikipedia.
> But not allowing rebuttals of criticisms of a candidate -- whether those criticisms are true or not -- is partisan. <
False.
> I have been over this many times already <
But you are just too dumb to realize that it is absurd.
Well, you sure took your sweet time... I've been egging you on and on about this for weeks. Were you scared that what I said about the possible fines for filing fraudulent reports? However, in the end, I had a feeling you would do it if taunted enough. Now, I will lay down why this was ultimately a retarded idea. First, your claims of bias and censorship will be hard, if not impossible to prove. Your original grievance was over the inclusion of PZ Meyer's blog as a referenced source over your own , am I right? However, you failed to consider that these blogs have documented non-biased sources on Yecke's support of ID, and were presented in a way that simply states that Yeck is a supporter of ID. Your own contribution history on wiki are sourced from your own blog of opinions without any references other than your own beliefs. There is simply no documented sources that disproves Yecke's affiliation with ID and there is no bias other than your own, which you tried to insert, which was then rightfully removed in compliance with section 501(c)(3). Like how I spun that? Here's a further spin: Right wing blogger files fraudulent IRS reports after failed attempts to have Wikipedia violate 501(c)(3) through partisan editing.
Also, I just KNEW you were in contact with her. But hey, I'm sure she's got a whole slew of people lined up to erase the undesirables of her past. You'd better get pushy and assertive real quick otherwise there won't be a single government job left over for you once all her biggest cronies fill them.
The fact that you filed this report only generates even more publicity to Yecke's support of ID. Even in the remote chance that Wiki is penalized, people will know that it was over Yecke's support of ID (you do realize that a lot more publicity will be generated if wiki is penalized, right?). What you don't seem to realize is that Yecke's original intent was to REMOVE as much publicity about her support of ID as possible. You kinda blew it there... but hey, maybe she won't know.
Hopefully, once enough people realize what she stands for, her political career will be over for good without doing any more harm. Thank you for your efforts. They will not go unnoticed.
Anonymous said (10:10:00 PM)--
>>>>>> Well, you sure took your sweet time... I've been egging you on and on about this for weeks. <<<<<<
Egging me on about what?
>>>>>> Were you scared that what I said about the possible fines for filing fraudulent reports? <<<<<<
As I said, there are no fines -- the IRS even says that the fraud reports will be processed even if they are submitted anonymously.
>>>>>> First, your claims of bias and censorship will be hard, if not impossible to prove. <<<<<<
Wrong -- these claims will be easy to prove, because the evidence is right there in the edit history and the discussion page. Of course, the Wickedpedians could always destroy the evidence, and they have done that.
>>>>>> Your original grievance was over the inclusion of PZ Meyer's blog as a referenced source over your own , am I right? <<<<<<
No, you are wrong. I originally just submitted a rebuttal without disturbing anything that was already in the bio. Discrimination against my blog was not an issue then.
>>>>> However, you failed to consider that these blogs have documented non-biased sources on Yecke's support of ID, and were presented in a way that simply states that Yeck is a supporter of ID. Your own contribution history on wiki are sourced from your own blog of opinions without any references other than your own beliefs. <<<<<<
That is absolutely false. My blog uses the same references that the other blogs do -- I just interpret those references differently from the way those other blogs interpret them. BTW, Yecke's bio has an undocumented radio quote of her.
>>>>>> There is simply no documented sources that disproves Yecke's affiliation with ID and there is no bias other than your own, which you tried to insert, which was then rightfully removed in compliance with section 501(c)(3). <<<<<<
The issue is not Yecke's affiliation with ID but the nature of Yecke's afffiliation with ID. Anyway, the rules for 501(c)(3) organizations do not require removal of rebuttals, even false rebuttals -- in fact, those rules require the opposite.
>>>>>> Right wing blogger files fraudulent IRS reports after failed attempts to have Wikipedia violate 501(c)(3) through partisan editing. <<<<<<
Only in your dreams.
Anonymous said (10:33:00 PM) --
>>>>>>But hey, I'm sure she's got a whole slew of people lined up to erase the undesirables of her past. <<<<<
I am not trying to "erase the undesirables of her past" -- I don't even think that it is possible to do that. All I tried to do was post a rebuttal. In many or most cases, even posting a rebuttal is impossible, but Wikipedia is obligated to accept a rebuttal because of Wikipedia's 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. I think that ReputationDefender.com is not being honest in offering a removal service -- in two cases publicized in the newspaper, ReputationDefender failed to get the undesirable material removed.
>>>>> You'd better get pushy and assertive real quick otherwise there won't be a single government job left over for you once all her biggest cronies fill them. <<<<<
WHAT? You think I am doing this because I am seeking a government job in Florida? That's absurd.
>>>>>>> Even in the remote chance that Wiki is penalized, people will know that it was over Yecke's support of ID (you do realize that a lot more publicity will be generated if wiki is penalized, right?). <<<<<
Do you think that I would pass up a golden opportunity to shaft Wickedpedia just to protect Yecke? And if Wickedpedia is penalized, it will probably generate sympathy for her.
> Wikipedia is obligated to accept a rebuttal because of Wikipedia's 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. <
False, False, False, False, False!
> I think that ReputationDefender.com is not being honest in offering a removal service -- in two cases publicized in the newspaper, ReputationDefender failed to get the undesirable material removed. <
Do they guarantee results?
> You think I am doing this because I am seeking a government job in Florida? <
Another one flys over Larry's head!
>>>>>> Wikipedia is obligated to accept a rebuttal because of Wikipedia's 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. <
False, False, False, False, False! <<<<<<<
You were the one who said that repeating over an over again that something is true does not make it true -- or in this case, false.
>>>>> I think that ReputationDefender.com is not being honest in offering a removal service -- in two cases publicized in the newspaper, ReputationDefender failed to get the undesirable material removed. <
Do they guarantee results? <<<<<<
No -- but they don't admit that their chances of success in getting undesirable material deleted is very small. Here were two cases that got a lot of publicity and ReputationDefender still did not succeed in getting the material deleted.
>>>>>> You think I am doing this because I am seeking a government job in Florida? <
Another one flys (sic) over Larry's head! <<<<<<<
You profoundly retarded beetlebrain, as I said, under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be euthanized rather than sterilized because merely sterilizing you would not improve the human race quickly enough. Here is the statement that I was responding to:
Also, I just KNEW you were in contact with her. But hey, I'm sure she's got a whole slew of people lined up to erase the undesirables of her past. You'd better get pushy and assertive real quick otherwise there won't be a single government job left over for you once all her biggest cronies fill them.
What interpretation other than mine is possible?
ViW, you just make yourself look like the stupid piece of crap that you are by repeatedly saying that I am wrong without offering or explaining an alternative idea.
> You were the one who said that repeating over an over again that something is true does not make it true -- or in this case, false.<
I was trying to make that clear to you. I guess you believe it applies only to other people?
>>>>> .. Do they guarantee results? <<<<<<
> No -- but they don't admit that their chances of success in getting undesirable material deleted is very small. Here were two cases that got a lot of publicity and ReputationDefender still did not succeed in getting the material deleted. <
Wow! Two cases!
>>>>>> You think I am doing this because I am seeking a government job in Florida? <
> as I said <
Yes, you do tend to repeat yourself endlessly. You might expect that I would again then repeat that as an ethnic Jew, you would have gone up the chimney in the systematic holocaust that you deny happened, but this time I will try to resist the temptation.
> What interpretation other than mine is possible? <
Possibly the one he obviously intended?
> What interpretation other than mine is possible? <
Did they bring back the Idiot of the Month contest despite the trophy being retired with Larry's unbroken string of wins? If not, I nominate this line.
>>>>> What interpretation other than mine is possible? <
Did they bring back the Idiot of the Month contest despite the trophy being retired with Larry's unbroken string of wins? If not, I nominate this line. <<<<<<<
If you stupid jerks are too dumb to express yourselves well enough to give your interpretations, that's not my problem.
> That's typical of you stupid Darwinists -- claiming that you have some secret knowledge that others do not possess. <
I don't see where anyone is claiming "secret" knowledge. We are talking about common sense. It would be hard to find anyone outside of a mental institution and more than six years old that didn't know what was meant by the statement of anonymous. It may be different for you and your friends inside the mental hospital.
You don't have common sense either, dunghill.
That's real funny you would complain about it now, Larry, for that is what religious figures have been doing for centuries. I can cite way too many references, from efforts to ban translations of the bible from Latin to maintain dependence on members of the clergy for the masses' spiritual needs, the selling of indulgences, and the Vatican's secret vaults and archives (which are maintained to this day), to name a few. Whereas we Darwinists tend to cite specific and documented references to all that (not so) secret knowledge we like to throw around...
Feels like it's all winding down isn't it? I can tell from your tone. Your like a half-wit kid at school who stubbornly argues for a comically incorrect ideal to the point where all the other kids start making fun of you. And your final tearful come-back to all the insults and flying rocks is "Snifff... well all of you are stupid-heads!!!! Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!"
I'm willing to bet all this angst and stubborn ignorance was over a failing grade in grade school science class or something...
> Feels like it's all winding down isn't it? I can tell from your tone. <
It isn't winding down. It is getting worse. The noise level of his screaming and shreiking at home has increased until the neighbors are planning to call in the police (if they haven't already) It would sound like Larry is about to crack but we all know that he cracked long ago.
Well, this isn't the kind of winding down that I had in mind. Some morons can be made to stop their idiocy through suppression and other forms of censorship/deprivation. People like Larry, need to be stopped by allowing them to burn themselves out. Kinda like a raging tire fire spewing out putrid black smoke. Everyone has his limit and he's getting there. By making him focus on the Yecke thing over and over again, he'll eventually get sick of it and move on, or go out in some spectacular display of stupid. The fact that I'm posting this on his blog for him to read will provide further amusement when he runs out of the (not so) edgy come-backs and insults that he's resorting to.
Post a Comment
<< Home