Chip on the old block, invokes "right to vanish." Options

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Chip's been blocked


None too happy either.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

He appears to be the latest to join the meltdown parade, perhaps in sympathy with his old buddy SlimVirgin. True to form, he reacts by suggesting that Jimbo, the ArbCom, and Wikipedians of all persuasions are a bunch of Nazis.

Ever the diplomat, Chip also unloads on GeorgeWilliamHerbert, the blocking admin, who is probably generally on Chip's side.

[guy]

Chip also unloads on GeorgeWilliamHerbert, the blocking admin, who is probably generally on Chip's side.

And Chip makes an excellent point.

Admins who favor proceess over morality and facts make me sick.

[dtobias]

This recent quote by Chip regarding another editor is amusing...

The fact that you have been blocked for a week speaks for itself.

Sauce for the goose and the gander?

[Yehudi]

The fact that you have been blocked for a week speaks for itself.

The fact that Mr Berlet was not blocked for longer must also be saying something.

[Bob Boy]

Chip seems to follow the philosophy that are only two kinds of people on Wikipedia -

1) people who exactly agree with everything he says, and
2) people who are exactly like Adolf Hitler.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Chip seems to follow the philosophy that are only two kinds of people on Wikipedia -

1) people who exactly agree with everything he says, and
2) people who are exactly like Adolf Hitler.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Actually, that philosophy extends to the world outside Wikipedia as well.

[Cla68]

He appears to be the latest to join the meltdown parade, perhaps in sympathy with his old buddy SlimVirgin. True to form, he reacts by suggesting that Jimbo, the ArbCom, and Wikipedians of all persuasions are a bunch of Nazis.

Ever the diplomat, Chip also unloads on GeorgeWilliamHerbert, the blocking admin, who is probably generally on Chip's side.

A request by another admin to unblock is quickly and appropriately denied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227341010

[gomi]

A request by another admin to unblock is quickly and appropriately denied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227341010

For the purposes of clarity for those too lazy to click the link, SlimVirgin's request to unblock is denied by Sir Fozzie. Can we expect more diatribes about pro-WR admins?

[guy]

"on top of which his own bio is repeatedly under attack, often by the same people, and he has been incredibly patient about it."

Why is SV happy for someone to write and WP:OWN his own biography?

[Piperdown]

"on top of which his own bio is repeatedly under attack, often by the same people, and he has been incredibly patient about it."

Why is SV happy for someone to write and WP:OWN his own biography?

Well, she's batting 2 for 2 with Berlet and Weiss on that front.

Also supports "jossi" owning (and adminning!) the Prem article as a proxy autobiographer. 3 for 3.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Looks like he's gone, at the very least for a good while.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Looks like he's gone, at the very least for a good while.

...But not before deleting an interesting message from WAS 4.250.

[Rootology]

Wow, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227344107

Is totally off the wall inappropriate. Good block.

[Milton Roe]

He appears to be the latest to join the meltdown parade, perhaps in sympathy with his old buddy SlimVirgin. True to form, he reacts by suggesting that Jimbo, the ArbCom, and Wikipedians of all persuasions are a bunch of Nazis.

Umm, that's been Chip's major social and literary "trick" for his whole life, as somebody has already pointed out. Pretty much the same way SV decides that anybody who disagrees with her must be a troll or stalker.

And yeah, it's a general form of total fundamentalist closed-mindedness. It was said of Oppenheimer's nemesis Louis Straus, that if you disagreed with him politically, he would patiently explain his position to you again, on grounds that you must not have understood him the first time. If you continued to disagree, he would assume you must be a traitor. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[dtobias]

But it was Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time. People seem to be confusing Italian Fascism with German Nazism.

[Bob Boy]

Looks like he's gone, at the very least for a good while.

He'll be back - his livelihood depends on it. If it wasn't for Chip Berlet promoting Chip Berlet's websites, books, and whatever else, who would?

[Sarcasticidealist]

But it was Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time.

No kidding - as somebody who's visited Germany a couple of times and spent more than three years dating a German, the real accomplishment would be delaying a German train. Conductor's head would probably explode.

Steve Smith
Adding no value to WR threads
Since 2008

[Milton Roe]

But it was Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time. People seem to be confusing Italian Fascism with German Nazism.

Not "people"-- Chip Berlet. He's been causing problems in the fascism articles, since he really doesn't know anything about fascism (political philosophy of Mussolini). All he knows is that it's bad, associated with the axis in WW II and thus with Hitler, and thus must be politically similar.

It doesn't help that Hitler and Mussolini helped each other out in WW II, but that was some time after the initial statement of fascism by Mussolini. Hitler called Mussolini "my teacher" for showing him how to construct an authoritarian state. But the idiologies for WHY one would want to do such a thing, were originally quite different. Mussolini's ideas, which came well before German Socialism, are not particularly Nazi-like. Unless you group any political system in which the state plays a heavy hand as "politically similar." But then you can't tell left from right, and you're really on a libertarianism vs. everybody else scale. That's the famous Nolan axis, which measures personal freedom, and is orthogonal to the usual Left/Right scale.

Anyway, to understand Mussolini, you actually have to read Mussolini, which Berlet appears unwilling to do. In the early days, Mussolini has some complementary things to say about Jews, for example. It was only when WW II got his cookies in the fire and he was forced to rely on German military help, that the Italian fascists began to support the German extermination programs. They didn't start out that way, with racism as a core of their political philosophy, which of course the Nazis did.

[everyking]

But it was Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time. People seem to be confusing Italian Fascism with German Nazism.

His analogy is nastier than that, actually; he's referring to the deportations to the death camps. The "good Germans" don't ask where the trains are going.

[Milton Roe]

But it was Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time. People seem to be confusing Italian Fascism with German Nazism.

His analogy is nastier than that, actually; he's referring to the deportations to the death camps. The "good Germans" don't ask where the trains are going.

Yeah, I got that. And yes, he did that, too.

[Bob Boy]

Chip has requested that his biography be deleted, "just like Dan Brandt's".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227708254
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227734906

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Chip has requested that his biography be deleted, "just like Dan Brandt's".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227708254
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=227734906

Oh, the pathos!

Chip's jackbooted Praetorian Guard, comprised of SlimVirgin and Will Beback, doesn't inspire the sort of fear that it once did. There is an extensive block review at ANI where a number of editors come close to taunting SlimVirgin for refusing to come out and debate, preferring to attempt (unsuccessfully) to manipulate something behind the scenes. Will Beback darkly insinuates that the Svengali-like figure who is manipulating all of this from behind the scenes is... yours truly. Then he blusters about a retaliatory block against Polly Hedra, for saying "I think that Berlet is using Wikipedia to try to build up credibility and for commercial promotion of his organization, which provides defamation for hire."[1] He evidently intends to go through with it, judging by his reply to Cla68's strange request for ArbCom clarification.

[Somey]

I'd just like to say that simply having a brutally despotic and psychopathic fascist dictator in charge is no guarantee that trains will run on time. You've got to have talented, dedicated, well-trained people at all levels of your transportation infrastructure, from the people who build the trains to the people who manage the schedules to the engine drivers who actually go out there and run the @$#%^&!! trains.

Besides, everyone knows that trains run on coal, or else diesel fuel.

[The Joy]

I'd just like to say that simply having a brutally despotic and psychopathic fascist dictator in charge is no guarantee that trains will run on time. You've got to have talented, dedicated, well-trained people at all levels of your transportation infrastructure, from the people who build the trains to the people who manage the schedules to the engine drivers who actually go out there and run the @$#%^&!! trains.

Besides, everyone knows that trains run on coal, or else diesel fuel.

And powerful magnets!

[Proabivouac]

Adding no value to WR threads
Since 2008

Who told you that? I think you add value.

[Somey]

Who told you that? I think you add value.

I must have mentioned it during the last WRcon, the one in Bismarck, ND back in February. (I was kidding, though, honest!)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Interesting. Chip is now proclaiming that he must leave because his COI is under attack.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Sweet! Looks like I may have to update my article.

[Bob Boy]

Will Beback has now placed the Chipster's article up for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

[guy]

Will Beback has now placed the Chipster's article up for deletion:

Looks like a snowball keep to me. Worth remembering what happened on the first AfD:

Keep. This is barely worthy of a response. Cognition (talk ?Çó contribs) is a supporter or member of the LaRouche movement, a political cult headed by Lyndon LaRouche. Chip Berlet is an investigative journalist and researcher who specializes in tracking rightwing movements like the LaRouche organization, and he is therefore someone they perceive as an enemy. For that reason, Cognition is trying to have his Wikipedia entry deleted. In addition, the arbitration committee has ruled in two separate cases that LaRouche supporters are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, or to further his cause. This VfD is in clear violation of those rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I look forward to Slim dropping in again to condemn Chip as a LaRouche supporter.

[Cla68]

They're refusing to delete his biography. It will be interesting to see if he now starts posting to this forum to complain about his treatment by Wikipedia's administration.

By the way, my request for clarification to ArbCom was to see if the 2005 ruling could be used to help control any current problems surrounding the LaRouche articles, not just with Berlet but with everyone. But, judging by Bainer's response it probably can't be.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Bob Boy]

They're refusing to delete his biography. It will be interesting to see if he now starts posting to this forum to complain about his treatment by Wikipedia's administration.

By the way, my request for clarification to ArbCom was to see if the 2005 ruling could be used to help control any current problems surrounding the LaRouche articles, not just with Berlet but with everyone. But, judging by Bainer's response it probably can't be.

Silly Cla68! ArbCom rulings are not to be applied in any places but where the power structure says they are to be applied! Otherwise the riff-raff might start demanding equitable treatment. Duh!

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

But it was Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time. People seem to be confusing Italian Fascism with German Nazism.

Mussolini did not make the trains run on time either: trains

[Milton Roe]

Will Beback has now placed the Chipster's article up for deletion:

Looks like a snowball keep to me. Worth remembering what happened on the first AfD:

Keep. This is barely worthy of a response. Cognition (talk • contribs) is a supporter or member of the LaRouche movement, a political cult headed by Lyndon LaRouche. Chip Berlet is an investigative journalist and researcher who specializes in tracking rightwing movements like the LaRouche organization, and he is therefore someone they perceive as an enemy. For that reason, Cognition is trying to have his Wikipedia entry deleted. In addition, the arbitration committee has ruled in two separate cases that LaRouche supporters are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, or to further his cause. This VfD is in clear violation of those rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I look forward to Slim dropping in again to condemn Chip as a LaRouche supporter.

Remind them again. We can't get another visit from user:Cognition, since SV finally nailed him with an indef block, for all the reasons she could think of, in 2006 (the block log drips blood)

But Cognition2, playing Cato, might show up at this point on WP, saying how Berlet MUST BE DELETED, and salted! (Berlet delenda est, cum salis!). Like Carthage.

The funniest thing here is not that Berlet asked for his bio to be deleted-- the funniest thing is that he thought his bio might actually be, just because he wanted to be.

(IMG:http://www.petcaretips.net/Tweety_Swinging.jpg)
He not know Wikipedia vewwwy well, do he?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

By the way, my request for clarification to ArbCom was to see if the 2005 ruling could be used to help control any current problems surrounding the LaRouche articles, not just with Berlet but with everyone.

Berlet was the current problems surrounding the LaRouche articles. Without his trolling, I predict that those articles will be serene and stable.

I look forward to Slim dropping in again to condemn Chip as a LaRouche supporter.

They're refusing to delete his biography. It will be interesting to see if he now starts posting to this forum to complain about his treatment by Wikipedia's administration.

Thank god for your friendly neighborhood Wikipedia Review.

We can't get another visit from user:Cognition, since SV finally nailed him with an indef block, for all the reasons she could think of, in 2006 (the block log drips blood)

06:57, 12 April 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Cognition (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblocking to block for longer)

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Milton Roe]

From the deletion request:

'''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:

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:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here's a swell comment from the AfD page:

Keep Cberlet has spent years on Wikipedia vociferously insisting on his notability. The price of fame is not having 100% control over how your notability gets interpreted. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[guy]

Loads of good stuff. This needs to be kept for posterity and quoted in future BLP cases:

Delete - It is about time we as Wikipedians accept the responsibility that comes with success. If we cannot keep at bay the hordes of POV pushers that hide under the excuse of "it has been published in an RS so it must be cited", to misquote, misrepresent or otherwise edit articles to assassinate the character of living people, then we need to afford LPs the recourse to have their articles deleted or at a minimum stubified and monitored. It is about time that we develop a process to deal with those editors that will use these excuses to slant articles in a way that portrays these living people in a biased light, forgetting that RS is not a magic word: NPOV is not attained by throwing a number of sources into a page. It requires diligence, respect, and effort to create a BLP that is indeed neutral in its presentation of the subject. There should not be any excuses for sloppy, malicious, and biased accounts of living people in our project. ?ëê jossi ?ëê (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And can someone please nominate the closer for ArbCom:

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. The fact that the subject requests deletion is not per se a reason to delete, as John254 points out. The article is well sourced, and many other users agree that it is not defamatory. Even if there are problems with PoV and sourcing (as Jossi points out), these could easily be fixed without deletion. Those arguing for deletion are merely comparing this to the Daniel Brandt case, which is apples and oranges ?Çö Brandt was borderline notable, but Berlet seems irrefutably notable per the sources. Overall, I feel that this should be closed now before it spirals even more out of control, as the consensus seems rather obvious. If this is in the wrong, please let me know; this was a rather WP:BOLD non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters ?Çó (Broken clamshells?Çó Otter chirps ?Çó HELP!) 04:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[The Joy]

I thought non-admins could not close a XfD if there were any delete votes? It is not a WP:SNOW keep as long as there is opposition.