From the
deletion request: QUOTE
'''Comment''' I am Chip Berlet. The entry under [[Chip Berlet]] has, since it was created in 2004, been off and on a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information. It is currently biased and POV and fails the NPOV standard, much less BLP. It is currently under attack from conspiracy theorists and supporters of neofascist antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. Now being attacked are some entries where my work published in reputable journalistic and scholarly sources is being called unreliable and problematic. I have been trying to work within the Wiki guidelines on the entry [[Chip Berlet]] since December 2004. It is obvious that there is no interest in dealing with this ongoing problem and that Wikipedia's leadership ahs no solution to wikistalking and attacks by fanatics, which in my case has extended to a battle at Wiki quotes. Enough. Please delete the entry [[Chip Berlet]]. If it is appropriate for Dan Brandt, it is appropriate for me. Wikipedia has shown that it is unwilling or unable to enforce its own policies, and I have no faith that this will change in the near future. I have been through RFC's, Mediations, and Arbcom. It has been an utter waste of time. Please delete the entry [[Chip Berlet]], and when that is accomplished. Please delete my user account. I have no interest in discussing this.
But of course, he
is interested in discussing this, once he finds out it won't happen. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) On Chip Berlet's bio TALK page, he says that if it was done for Brandt, it could be done for him.
..Whoa, Chip, if you're comparing yourself to Brandt, you have to rock WP's world by outing a bunch of admins, first. Tasks of Hercules. You're a mosquito. And you just found out how small a mosquito.
And then, after Chip's request, there occurs one of those deftly sarcastic comments that appear mainly in official documents (police, court, government, military records, etc.), and (of course) on Wikipedia. In all of which, the people making the comments know they are being watched for bias, and are pretending like crazy they have none, and are working to show they are completely reasonable. Even while shoving the shiv into the back of somebody. This can be high art, if you're a taste for it. Of course, it's no fun if it's happening to you. But when it happens to evil-doers, as in judges' rulings during any good trial, it can be good theatre. This one happens as Martin Diode performs a bit of jujitzu on Berlet's egotistical penchant to use his own writings for reliable sources:
QUOTE(Marvin Diode)
Chip is presented as a Reliable Source for many contentious accusations in BLP and other articles throughout Wikipedia. These sorts of accusations must be attributed, and should be linked to a Wikipedia article so that the reader may evaluate the source of the accusations. In the case of Daniel Brandt, whose bio was deleted, I don't think that he is used as a source at Wikipedia to any significant degree. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So you see, how
could we delete any of this RS stuff? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) That's the
reason to keep it, and who's going to argue with this reason? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Chip, if you're going to argue that you're actually NOT a reliable source, then why should we believe you on
that, given that if we did, you'd be... unreliable? It's a
paradox.This post has been edited by Milton Roe: 
Chip on the old block, invokes "right to vanish."
CrazyGameOfPoker Chip on the old block 
