Line 19:
== Berlet editing ==
Chip Berlet should completely stay away from this article, or others mentioning him or his work, their talk pages and refrain from trying to add or remove any material pro, con, true, false or whatever either directly or indirectly on any of those pages.
It should be a wiki rule that no author can edit, comment or try to influence any article, or its talk pages, in any way that mentions them or their work. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.248.7.243|96.248.7.243]] ([[User talk:96.248.7.243|talk]]) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::How do we know that you aren't Chip Berlet? For the actual guideline, see [[WP:COI]]. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| •:• ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|•:•]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:''There are attempts to delete or sanitize other pages simply because some of '''my published scholarly or journalistic work''' is cited'' ... Cberlet (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:'''''"There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly''' about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public, including reporters and researchers who contact it for information." '' (p. 114-115) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Dispute_at_Chip_Berlet Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop/Dispute at Chip Berlet]
:Of course we know how this has been handled in the past. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] ([[User talk:Nobs01|talk]]) 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::What occasions this discussion? I believe that Chip has retired from WP editing. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::This isn't Conservapedia, where at least one editor appears to be obsessed by Berlet.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&limit=500&action=history][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&limit=500&action=history] [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| •:• ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|•:•]] 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Is one allowed to link to such BADSITES? ;)--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Will, I read through the whole thing, ''Old Nazis, New Nazis, and the Republican Party'' and couldn't find a scintilla of evidence to support Berlet's claim in the intro,
:::::"the trail from the bloody atrocities of the Waffen SS to the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican Party and even to the paneled walls of White House briefing rooms."''
::::Isn't this kind of hype is a little to risky for Wikipedia to risk its reputation on? [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] ([[User talk:Nobs01|talk]]) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Rob, in which article do we use that assertion? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| •:• ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|•:•]] 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I am referring to the use of extremist sources. You yourself joined the consensus to redirect the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#Deep_problems_with_the_article '''Roots of Ant-Semitism'''] after an extensive discussion over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F What Counts as Reputable]. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] ([[User talk:Nobs01|talk]]) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::A sentence written in the preface of someone else's book is proof that Berlet is an extreme source? Perhaps that assertion would make sense on Conservapedia. By Wikipedia standards, that sentence proves nothing. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| •:• ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|•:•]] 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::In the above link, our old friend RD made a pretty convincing case that the Reliable Sources policy (written by SlimVirgin) cited the Socialist Workers Party as an example of an extreme source. The subject of this article mainspace's own biography openly boasts working for that same Socialist Workers Party. (Slim says, "Okay, I'll stop now" and it was litigated in an ArbCom case originally accepted as Requests for Arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin but somehow ended up being called "Rangerdude".)
::::::::As an aside, how, pray tell, does a respondent in a ArbCom case get to remove herself and make the complaining party the respondent? You should know. You were the other respondent in that case that ArbCom voted to hear against you, but somehow ended up being the complainant. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] ([[User talk:Nobs01|talk]]) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::You mean [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others]]? I don't know how the ArbCom decides the scope of cases, and I've posted a question on just that point in the appropriate place. But none of this discussion concerns improvements to this article so we're off-topic. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| •:• ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|•:•]] 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::No, it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin]. ArbCom voted to accept the case ''against'' SlimVirgin & yourself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528], yet nowhere in the surviving record do we see SlimVirgin listed as a participant in the case. Amazing, since it was SlimVirgin herself who removed herself as a defendent. Remarkable transparancy, or lack thereof, in Wikipedia's internal regulatory processes. Could I do the same? Remove myself as a defendent from an ArbCom case ''after'' ArbCom votes to accept? [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] ([[User talk:Nobs01|talk]]) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't see what that has to do with editing this article. The only folks who can answer your questions are ArbCom members. You can post a request at [[WP:RFAR]]. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::It has everything to do with editing this article. In that very case ArbCom voted to hear ''against'' you & SlimVirgin ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Dispute_at_Chip_Berlet /Workshop/Dispute at Chip Berlet]}, well qualified sources were presented for the statement, "There is nothing even vaguely impartial, objective or scholarly about PRA except the image it attempts to foist upon an unsuspecting public." Yet through an obviously tainted process, and reprisals against editors seeking NPOV, this non-objective and unscholarly image was foisted upon Wikipedia & an unsuspecting public. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] ([[User talk:Nobs01|talk]]) 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
== Incomplete sentence ==
|