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

[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: Fri 25th July 2008, 11:27pm

[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.


He not know Wikipedia vewwwy well, do he?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Sat 26th July 2008, 2:03am

[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: Sat 26th July 2008, 1:32am

[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. 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? That's the reason to keep it, and who's going to argue with this reason? 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: Sat 26th July 2008, 3:40am

[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.