Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Cberlet

Nobs01

• July --> November 2005
  • Nobs01 repeatedly misrepresents the text in underlying cites to make exaggerated and hyperbolic claims on the following pages: Harry_Magdoff, Harry Magdoff and espionage, Conspiracy_allegations_about_Harry_Magdoff, VENONA project , Significance of Venona, and I._F._Stone.
    • False claim that "U.S. Government" had identified Magdoff as a Soviet spy: "The U.S. government, as well as several historians and researchers, have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government."[2][3],
    • False claim: Claiming federal agency reports represent official position of U.S. government: [4]
    • Other examples: [5] [6][7][8]
  • Other editors express concern over text being entered by Nob01, as well [9] [10]
  • Nobs01 continually dismisses my concerns on these pages, reverts and deletes text that is properly cited, and claims that the scholars I cite are not reputable, and perhaps part of a larger communist conspiracy.[11] [12]
  • Rather than editing in a constructive and collaborative manner, Nobs frequently does not directly answer specific questions, but instead buries the talk pages in mountains of text that does not address the concerns being raised. See: Talk:Harry_Magdoff, Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage, Talk:Conspiracy_allegations_about_Harry_Magdoff, Talk:VENONA project Talk:Significance of Venona, Talk:I._F._Stone.
    • Example: [13].
  • This continues a pattern, experienced by several other editors on other pages as well, whereby talk pages are buried by Nobs01 with text that is so oblique as to be incomprehensible,[14] and sometimes appears to be little more than incoherent gibberish[15]. When it becomes obvious that Nobs01 is essentially having the same content dispute on several pages with several editors, a neutral editor attempts to move the discussions to a single page, Talk:VENONA project saying "it's unproductive to be repeating this argument from scratch on the talk pages of a half-dozen different articles" [16]. At first Nobs01 refuses to move the discussion to that page. [17] Finally he agrees to a full discussion at Talk:VENONA project. This results in more mountains of text, but no significant resolution, and leads to a mediation.

• August 2005
  • Nobs assists Sam Spade and Rangerdude in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet [18] [19] [20]

• August 2005
  • nobs in concert with Rangerdude took over the Wiki text entry discussion on me: [Talk:Chip_Berlet]. There they attacked the quality of my professional work outside of Wikipedia and generally issued personal attacks in the form of obscure and POV criticisms.[21] [22]

• 17:37, 3 August 2005

nobs inserted a POV attack attack on the Nation magazine in retaliation for an edit that I supported.[23]; (He later modified the text slightly).

• 01:05 19 August 2005
  • Nobs01 proclaims that after his superior edits I "crapped my pants" [24].

• 23:41 4 October
  • Mediator requests that Cberlet and Nobs01 move discussion to mediation.[25]

• 28 October --> 4 November 2005
  • Nobs01 walks away from mediation and returns to editing Significance of Venona which is one of the pages being mediated. [26] [27]

• November 2005
  • Nobs assists Rangerdude and Cognition in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet [28]

• 12 November --> 21 November 2005
  • Nobs01 turns the talk page for my Wiki entry Talk:Chip Berlet into a page full of guilt-by-association personal attacks.[29]

• 06:28 13 November 2005
  • Nobs01 suggests that I am complicit in a terrorist underground, and is challenged by another editor.[30]

• 03:34 21 November 2005
  • Nobs01 suggests that I am complicit in murder: "The murder of Richard S. Welch was the entirely predictable result of the disclosure tactics chosen by certain American critics"[31]

• 17 December 2005

Nob01 continues to carry out a vendetta. Just today he posted outlandish attacks on the pages Talk:Chip Berlet and Talk:Political Research Associates. It is a disgrace. It undermines the accuracy, credibility, and NPOV of Wikipedia. How long will this vendetta by Nob01 be tolerated?--Cberlet 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses to evidence presented by Nobs01

• On the Conspiracism page, which I created, when I listed books, I did not include the book I co-wrote, although I did add a link to an well-known online article I wrote [32]. When I added more books, I again did not include my book.[33] [34]. Some other editor added my name to the text in the article, and attributed a sentence to me (fair enough, but not cited to published source). Later, I realized the quote should be properly cited, and made it so [35]. Hardly a conscious plot to promote my book.

Herschelkrustofsky

After editorial content disputes with me, Herschelkrustofsky visits Chip Berlet to add negative material:

• 14:14, 19 June 2004
  • Posting false claim that I worked for the National Student Association before it was exposed as a "CIA front," instead of after that tie was broken.[36]

• 11:59 21 June 2004
  • Made false claims about "numerous" meetings and being paid to implement a non-existent "campaign" to smear LaRouche.[37]

• 12:40 19 December 2004
  • Posted a large bloc of unverified, speculative, and mostly false claims derived solely from various LaRouchite websites.[38]

• 14:34, 12 October 2005
  • Herschelkrustofsky suggests I am a government agent: "One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Wikipedia as an attempt to relive his glory days." [39].

Responses to evidence presented by Herschelkrustofsky

• Herschelkrustofsky claims that I "falsely" represent that a certain LaRouche essay was published. It was originally published by a mimeograph machine or spirit duplicator. The image I have is degraded, in part because it is a later photocopy. However the tract was indeed published and circulated and has been cited as such by others. It was common in the 1960s and 1970s for small political groups to "publish" study materials by mimeograph machine or spirit duplicator.

• Herschelkrustofsky complains that I cited an "unpublished paper by Chip Berlet." (diff.) Papers presented at formal scholalry conferences are considered published. I provided the quote and cite after complaints that particular claims were uncited (even though most were based on cites already on the page). I found some cites, but one I could not find. I replaced it with a quote from a paper I presented at the Elie Wiesel Center at Boston University.[40] The paper is forthcoming as a chapter in a book based on the conference papers.

Sam Spade

• 19:52, 8 January 2005
  • Sam_Spade visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [41].

• April 2005
  • I suggest that Sam Spade is inserting POV into the Political Correctness page and not recognizing his own biases:[42]

• 17:03, 23 Apr 2005
  • Sam Spade refuses to engage in constructive editing on the Political Correctness page and I post: "The problem is that you refuse to cite the basis for your reverts and edits, and refuse to allow others to make changes. Until you agree to actually debate the merits of much of the text on this page, the header is appropriate. Start by citing one conservative scholar who agrees with the definition in the lead.--Cberlet" [43].

• May 2005
  • I am embrolied in further editorial content disputes with Sam_Spade on the Political Correctness page [44]. This leads to [User:Sam_Spade|Sam_Spade]] posting: "I suggest you chill the fuck out." I seek mediation [45].

• August 2005
  • Sam Spade assists Nobs and Rangerdude in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet[46]

• November 2005
  • Sam Spade starts a series of revert wars on a collection of pages that I am proposing be revised[47][48][49][50]. The discussion is at Talk:Right-wing politics. Sam Spade begins this revert war without a single discussion entry on any of the pages. He also removes an active Merge notice at Far-right[51].--Cberlet 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Responses to evidence presented by Sam Spade

• In the cited example, Sam Spade clearly plagiarised the work of William Lind.16:18, 21 June 2005 Apparently this was not intentional, and is the type of error that inexperienced writers often make. However, Sam Spade's aggressive response to a simple correction, and his continued refusal to accept the fact of the plagiarism, is problematic. View how I fixed the plagiarism:[52] [53]; and the response by Sam Spade "Lying anmd slandering, is this how you conduct yourself professionally as well?"[54] To confirm that it is plagiarism, search "censorship based on the social mores of the times" and "Lind." Another editor agreed. [55].

• Sam Spade suggests something sinister in my preference for formal mediation, however I explained my reasons at the time: "NOTE TO ALL: I am reluctant to enter into an informal mediation process. On both pages, Political Correctness and Christian right editing moves forward. I have always relied on formal mechanisms in the past at Wikipedia, and found them useful and constructive. Please stop trying to involve me in a process not officially sanctioned by Wikipedia as a community. --Cberlet 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" [56]

Rangerdude

22:32, 25 July 2005 Rangerdude files a Request for Comment against me and User:Willmcw that goes nowhere.[57]. Many of the claims made by Rangerdude on this page are refuted in the course of the discussion at this Request for Comment.

• 03:23, 28 July 2005
  • While his Request for Comment is active Rangerdude plops a giant wad of criticism on my entry.[58]

• 4 August 2005
  • Rangerdude then carries the attack to another page [Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism] [59] [60].

• August 2005
  • After having his claims refuted in the RfC, Rangerdude assists Nobs and Sam Spade in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

• August 2005
  • Rangerdude in concert with nobs took over the Wiki text entry discussion on me: [Talk:Chip_Berlet]. There they attacked the quality of my professional work outside of Wikipedia and generally issued personal attacks in the form of obscure and POV criticisms [66]

• November 2005
  • Rangerdude assists Nobs and Cognition in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet[67]

Responses to evidence presented by Rangerdude

• • There was a series of complaints that specific criticisms of LVMI lacked cites, that my article for SPLC was not legitimate, and that material posted on the LVMI website could not be found. When I attempted to provide the missing information, Rangerdude deleted it under a variety of protexts.[68] When other editors said that was not fair, Rangerdude filed a complaint.--Cberlet 01:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cognition

• 2 July 2005
  • Cognition arrives to push a pro-LaRouche POV on the entry on me Chip Berlet and its talk page Talk:Chip Berlet: [69] [70]

• July 2005

Cognition is briefly suspended for POV pushing and personal attacks, including attacks on me [User:Cberlet]. [71]

• 06:06, 28 October 2005
  • Cognition uploads distorted image to entry on Chip Berlet [72] after inserting POV into Chip Berlet [73].

• November 2005
  • Cognition assists Nobs and Rangerdude in posting negative material to the entry on me at Chip Berlet [74]

Responses to evidence presented by Cognition

• I urge the arbitrators to read Cognition's [[Conspiracism|conspiracist] narrative on this page about how I am part of the grand timeless conspiracy against LaRouche, all major world religions, and humanity itself. Cognition makes the case against himself far better than I ever could hope to do.

Evidence presented by User:Rangerdude

The charges made by Cberlet against me in this case are flat out absurd. I first met this individual on July 25th at the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. Mr. Berlet showed up in the middle of an already pending dispute on this article and basically rewrote the contested section in a way that strongly favored his own POV, including citations of his own off-site political rants against the LVMI.[75] Following this edit, I took out the POV material, drafted a detailed explanation of the problems with it, recommended moving it to the talk page to work out the differences, and politely asked Cberlet and all other editors to work on a NPOV revision of it on the talk page. Following the list of NPOV problems with Cberlet's rewrite, I stated:

Given these problems, I removed most of the materials that were added by Cberlet on this subject and restored a more neutral formatting. Upon consideration of the above and review of the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he or any other user is invited to propose the addition of materials here on the talk page, albeit in a wording that complies with Wikipedia's policies and NPOV mandate with an aim to adding them if and when a neutral version emerges that can obtain reasonable consensus among other editors, as Wikipedia policy also mandates. I am hopeful this will help to resolve some of the difficulties and look forward to any contributions along these ends.here

Cberlet responded to me within a matter of minutes by posting rude personal attacks on me and reverting to his version despite the problems I had outlined with it [76]. He attacked me in the edit summary by accusing me of "shameless censorchip of criticsm" and repeated this attack and others several times on the talk page. Cberlet was also extremely uncooperative in response to the polite request I made there, and responded with belligerency from the very start.[77]

After these first attacks, I posted a second message to the talk page asking him to tone down the attacks and behave himself more appropriately:

Cberlet - there's no need for hostility or rudeness. Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus and your edits should conform to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Many of yours did not as I have detailed above. Due to these problems I have politely asked you to post your desired additions and any pertinent revisions of them here on the talk page so that they may be worked on and a solution reached in compliance with WP:NPOV and all related source use guidelines. Simply throwing a fit and refusing to reconcile standing problems with the aforementioned edits despite explicit requests to do so is not in the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia, so I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated[78]

Cberlet responded with more attacks, stating "this is just censorship" [79] and making multiple bad faith insinuations and attacks against me. I responded a third time by politely reminding him to assume good faith and warning him that his belligerency was quickly pushing us toward the need for dispute resolution [80]. Cberlet responded by changing one single word in his disputed rewrite and insisting that the problem was fixed [81]. I replied that the problems were more extensive, and again politely requested that he review them on the talk page [82]. Cberlet responded with more personal attacks and bad faith insinuations against me, stating that I "feign courtesy" and saying that my talk page requests of him were "franky my dear, not worth a damn." He concluded by instructing me to "pursue dispute resolution if you like" [83]. I responded with another calmly worded message informing him:

Cberlet - I've tried to be courteous towards you as the subject you are editing on involves multiple participants and extends far beyond your own contributions. My aim in this section is to reach a NPOV wording that is agreeable to both sides of the conflict - as in both those who favor including the SPLC and those who object to its inclusion. You appear to have strong and highly partisan political beliefs in one of these directions, yet you make few allowances for the fact that others here also differ with those beliefs as is their right. You also seem not to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is inherently collaborative, making bad faith attacks and bad faith assumptions about other editors who simply attempt to reign in your excesses with a mind towards following Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I've been perfectly polite with you and more than sufficiently patient on this matter, intervening only to stop your uncollaborative edits and respond to your unduly hostile attitude while openly inviting and encouraging you to work towards a more productive end. That having failed, I suppose seeking outside participation is the next recourse.[84]

Cberlet responded with more personal attacks and bad faith: "Please stop, LOL. You are so humorous. Great parody. What fun."[85]. About that same time he posted a vicious unprovoked personal attack against me on User:Willmcw's talk page [86]. I then filed a user RfC against him for personal attacks later that day.

This chain of events clearly reveals several things about Mr. Berlet's behavior in this dispute and the manner in which I responded:

1) Cberlet engaged in personal attacks and responded to me with extreme unprovoked hostility from the moment of his very first post to me.

2) Throughout this dispute I remained calm in my responses to him. I repeatedly attempted to reason with him in a polite tone on the talk page and asked him to do the same, but instead was only met with more hostility. At no point in this chain of events did I "harass" Mr. Berlet or approach him in language that was anything other than calm and reasonably polite.

3) Cberlet continued his personal attacks against me after I repeatedly asked him not to violate WP:NPA and WP:FAITH.

4) I only initiate the RfC against him after repeatedly attempting and failing to get him to curtail his personal attacks on the talk page, and repeatedly warning him that I would report him for breaking WP:NPA if he did not stop.

Self Citation

Cberlet frequently self-cites his own political and editorial writings in Wikipedia articles and does so without disclosing he is the author.

• 13:45, 25 July 2005 - Adds self-cite of an article he wrote for the highly partisan Southern Poverty Law Center to attack the Ludwig von Mises Institute

WP:OWN Violations

Cberlet attempts to exert ownership and content control over articles about himself at Chip Berlet and his organization Political Research Associates. He frequently refers to these articles as "my article" or "my page"

• 03:39, 3 August 2005 - Post entitled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" calling for critical material by David Horowitz to be expunged and reduced to a single link on the Chip Berlet page.
• 13:14, 28 September 2005 - Post on Political Research Associates implying an attempt to control its content - "We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed"

Political and Personal Attacks

Cberlet often makes highly venomous political attacks in his comments on Wikipedia. These include attacks on both conservative figures and on what he supposes to be the political affiliations of any editor who criticizes him.

• 16:37, 28 September 2005 - "So far we have had this page taken over by...fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute." Attack on other editors who added material that was critical of PRA)
• 16:37, 28 September 2005 - "The critics of PRA quoted include...David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right." (Political attacks)
• "This passive/aggressive baloney from Rangerdude is tiresome. He now rules the LvMI page with an iron fist, in a perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over. The iron first in the velvet glove--the perfect metaphor." [87]

Response to Cberlet's claims above

RfC - Cberlet complains that I filed a user RfC against him here. He does not state, however, what prompted this RfC. It was filed in response to his pattern of personal attacks, uncooperative behavior, and edit warring at the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. During this dispute Cberlet:

• Made personal attacks and bad faith insinuations in the edit description line calling earlier edits "shameless censorchip of criticsm" [88]
• Uncooperative and anti-consensus behavior on talk page. I posted a politely worded request to discuss a disputed section he authored on the talk page and work out a more neutral compromise version there. His response was "Reverted. This is absurd." [89]
• More bad faith responses to the same talk page request. "This is just censorship."
• He made this response to yet another polite request that he discuss the disputed section and work on a compromise version at the talk page: "To engage in massive deletions that sanitize criticism, and repeated reversions; and then to feign courtesy, while at the same time threatenting sanctions, is, franky my dear, not worth a damn." [90]
• Lengthy personal attack against me posted at Willmcw's talk page: "This passive/aggressive baloney from Rangerdude is tiresome. He now rules the LvMI page with an iron fist, in a perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over. The iron first in the velvet glove--the perfect metaphor."[91]
• Self citation of his own off-site attack articles as if they were "factual" without disclosing his authorship or political bias.[92]

Chip Berlet article - Cberlet's grievance with me here is absurd. He takes issue with the simple fact that I added material to what he believes is "his" article - Chip Berlet - that was not full of glowing praise. A simple review of my edit here reveals that I thoroughly sourced each and every addition I made, attributed political material directly to its authors by name, and even included a response by Berlet to fairly represent his view in the controversy.

Roots of Anti-Semitism Article - I did not carry an "attack" to this article as cberlet claims. Rather, I posted a polite question there asking for input on a conversation at the Chip Berlet talk page regarding the proper way to use and represent political material authored by Mr. Berlet in accordance with WP:RS. This note may be seen here and contains nothing whatsoever even remotely resembling an attack on Cberlet.

Taking over the Chip Berlet page - Cberlet claims above "Rangerdude in concert with nobs took over the Wiki text entry discussion on me." This allegation is conspiratorial nonsense and is made in bad faith. My only "offense" was to participate in editing an article that Cberlet believes himself to "own." As I showed above my additions to this article were fully documented and factual - he simply didn't like the fact that they contained information from a different viewpoint than his own that was critical of him and his writings. Berlet calls the material I added "obscure and POV criticisms."

This is an odd allegation for two reasons. First, I properly attributed the criticisms of Berlet to the viewpoints of their authors with full sources, thus complying with WP:NPOV. To be fair I even added his response to them.

Second, my additions were hardly "obscure" sources. I added material criticizing Berlet by David Horowitz - a bestselling author, nationally syndicated political columnist, and frequent television talk show participant. In fact, Horowitz is far better known nationally than Mr. Berlet himself!

Response to Cberlet's "harassment" and "assistance" allegations

Cberlet has also posted several conspiratorial claims alleging that I "assisted" nobs, Sam Spade, and Cognition "in posting negative material" to Chip Berlet. This claim is outrageous and bizarre as I did not coordinate my posts with or in any other way "assist" any of these posters. I simply edited the article in a manner that complied fully with WP:NPOV and the source citation guidelines. Cberlet is attempting to have me penalized for doing nothing more than making edits without his personal approval to an article he believes himself to own but in fact does not. Every example he gives is a legitimate and valid edit, and certainly nothing meriting penalty:

• [93] - I simply added a date of a claim by Berlet regarding his involvement in a political organization. Cberlet fraudulently claims that this was done in coordination with Nobs and Cognition, yet it shows nothing of the sort!
• [94] - I simply restored valid sourced material by Horowitz after User:SlimVirgin expunged it at the request and instigation of Cberlet despite its being properly sourced and documented. Cberlet fraudulently claims that this was done in coordination with Nobs and Sam Spade, yet it shows nothing of the sort!
• [95] - I restored more valid and sourced Horowitz material when SlimVirgin deleted it on Cberlet's instigation. Cberlet fraudulently claims that this was done in coordination with Nobs and Sam Spade, yet it shows nothing of the sort!
• [96] - I reverted the article to restore valid and sourced Horowitz material after El_C deleted it at Cberlet's instigation. Cberlet fraudulently claims that this was done in coordination with Nobs and Sam Spade, yet it shows nothing of the sort!
• [97] - I added valid sourced material about Chip Berlet by David Horowitz, a well known and widely published political commentator who has had several heated public exchanges with Berlet. Cberlet fraudulently claims that this was done in coordination with Nobs and Sam Spade, yet it shows nothing of the sort!
• [98] - I posted a polite note on the talk page in a discussion about whether it was appropriate under WP:RS to use political and editorial material by Mr. Berlet as a source for claims made in articles. I argued that it was not appropriate to use as anything other than a representation of Mr. Berlet's viewpoints because it was from an extremely partisan political source and represented only his personal opinions. Cberlet claims that in doing so I made a "personal attack" against him, which is absurd considering my entire post was about whether or not his material complied with an official wikipedia guideline for use.

Cberlet also claims that the RfC I filed against him for making personal attacks went "nowhere." This claim is blatantly dishonest. My RfC against him was certified by two other participants within hours of being filed, and also received the endorsement of two outside editors. Those editors subsequently contributed at length to resolving the dispute at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Meanwhile, Cberlet's response drew the support of the same predictable clique of editors who back him out of friendship regardless of his behavior in every dispute he's involved in, this Arbcom proceeding included. Curiously, not one single editor endorsing his RfC response did anything to resolve the dispute at the LVMI article and all treated it as if it were something they could "vote down" if they piled on enough support behind Cberlet without paying attention to his many policy violations. A couple in this crowd lingered on the RfC's talk page and threw personal insults and attacks at the editors who recognized Cberlet's wrongdoings, but none of his supporters lifted so much as a finger to improve the LVMI article or resolve the dispute that prompted the RfC. Meanwhile the LVMI dispute was peacefully resolved, thanks almost entirely to the efforts of the editors who endorsed the RfC against Cberlet. Rangerdude 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Nobs01

Statement

User:Cberlet has used a shifting basis of arguements he has great difficulty in generating a paper trail through diffs to sustain that a dispute even exists. Two examples are (1) a ratified agreement over a confusing source citation [99][100] he presented as in dispute in his Mediation Summary. (2) A lengthy discussion on several pages [101][102] over the origin of the phrase, "The following were members of the Victor Perlo network". Cberlet maintained the phrase needed to be attributed to Elizabeth Bentley; nobs documented over that discussion, the phrase could not be attributed to Bentley, and the origin of the phrase was government documents (FBI). Nevertheless, the dispute was driven into Mediation, where Cberlet presented in his Mediation Summary, the phrase was attributed to the FBI.

The only thing in the face of facts and documentation, that Cberlet has to allege that a dispute even exists, is his POV. That is the only thing that remains constant, inspite of the fact source documents repeatedly contradict his novel original research assertions. Nonetheless, he has used RfC's, RfM's, and now an RfArb to attack the messenger of bad news, rather than examine the documents from a NPOV.

After reading his WikiEN-1 [103] ("I freely confess, I have a vested interest in this matter"), and this recent insertion [104] to the Conspiracism article, an article he created, cites himself, and adds a book promo, it becomes clear User:Cberlet's vested interest is on several levels. Cberlet has abused the Dispute Resolution Process to drive user:nobs into Arbitration, to sustain his commercial exploitation of Wikipedia (see WP:NOT), to peddle his conspiracy books. Nobs documentation (Significance of Venona#Notes) destroys "conspiracy theories" he has a vested interest in, to sell books. This may sound like a gross oversimplification of the whole matter, but concsiously or unconsciously, I believe it has merit. nobs 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

July - August

• Multiple edtors object to Cberlet's unilateral move of Harry Magdoff to Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff, deletions of properly cited material, and original research. [105] [106] [107]; also persistent vandalism.

July - Novemeber

• Instances of nobs agreeing to problematic nature of the term "spy" with offers to collaborate on solutions. [108][109][110][111][112][113][114] [115]

24 July

• 18:32
  • nobs offers to "assist in providing some of the best critical rebuttal material available" [116] with past example.

28 July

• 20:32
  • Cberlet's original research documented by another editor [117]

• 22:24
  • Cberlet vandalizes page, blanks namespace. [118]

29 July

• 20:14
  • nobs issues good faith proposal at User talk:Cberlet (declared as such) to resolve "a myriad of disputes", including "the persistent vandalism that now is occurring on the Venona project page itself." [119]

30 July

• 11:50
  • Cberlet rewrites lead "for accuracy"; changes "U.S. government" to "government agencies" [120]

2 August

• 17:40
  • nobs rejects left-right Political Spectrum Theory [121].
• 1823
  • nobs defines personal political views,
    • "I reject the basic concept that all political activity is ideologically driven, hence the very underlying construct of a "left-right division". [122]

3 August

• 19:42
  • Cberlet denies nobs access to prescribed dispute resolution process,
    • "Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to." [123]
      • Applicable Precedent Statement of Principal
        • users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages [124]

17 August

• 13:02
  • Cberlet, after reviewing underlying documents, alters text of a properly cited, primary source document from first person eyewitness, to third party not present; ("the Soviets were unsure of the type of material he might be asked to deliver.") [125]. Changes meaning entirely. Edit Summary reads "[b]alanced text, edited leaps of conclusion".

22 August

• 14:30
  • Cberlet's original research [126]; misuse of edit sumnmary

• 15:43
  • Questionable secondary source inserted to refute two fully qualified primary source citations. [127] Also, vagueness & relevency to Venona project in question by multiple editors.

• 17:10
  • Cberlet's original research criticism of primary & secondary sources. [128]

27 Auguat

• 20:27
  • nobs offers Cberlet "hand of cooperation" at Category talk:Soviet spies[129].

12 September

• 19:50
  • Cberlet deletes compromise wording completely [130]

15 September

• 09:57
  • Cberlet solicits User:Bk0 for "Input welcome".[131]

• 10:04
  • Cberlet solicits User:Ruy Lopez [132]

16 September

• 01:41
  • User:Ruy Lopez delivers rabid personal attack, says "I, and others, like Chip Berlet, have taken a stand" [133]
• 01:42
  • In a personal attack subhead entitled ==Nobs has once again misrepresented sources in his espionage paragraphs== Cberlet charges nobs with "misrepresentation", "inaccurate", "biased", and "false"; Cberlet extracts,
    • " 'The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network". That statement is not qualified as "According to Elizabeth Bentley", or 'Elizabeth Bentley has alleged', etc.", says " this is a misrepresentation. " [134]; changes basis of this argument in Mediation Dispute Summary Workshop [135]

20 September

• 14:09
  • Cberlet uses banned sockpuppet troll to deliver personal attack [136]; states,
    • "Sometimes Nobs simply deletes the fact that some of these people denied the charges [137]"; uses edit summary to deliver personal attack.

• 17:13
  • Cberlet adds link to banned sockpuppet troll, User:Coqsportif [138]

• 17:55
  • [139] nobs quotes User:SlimVirgins ban [140] of sockpuppet troll [141] identified by User:Viajero, the same user Cberlet is in regular communication with [142][143], who called nobs "xenophobic", and inserted material from the neo-nazi IHR cite into the Harry Dexter White article[144], exhorts Cberlet to initiate RfM so this matter can proceed to RfArb.
    • nobs reversion was to the language of Prof. Roger Sandilands [145], the original author of the article [146].

23 September

• 16:53
  • Cberlet posts,
    • "OK, so now we agree on the proper cite, even though the gov. gets it wrong" and,
    • "We can spell out NACIC if that makes folks happier." [147]
      • (note: NACIC = National Counterintelligence Center).
• 19:42
  • nobs requests assistance at WP:CITE for citation of unpublished footnotes [148]

24 September

• 04:23
  • nobs fixes reference to agree cite, reinserts Cberlet's own language, "government agencies" [149]

• 14:55
  • Cberlet deletes "government agencies"; example of several extensive revisions by Cberlet after agreement; deletes National Counterintelligence Center's, Counterintelligence Reader; [150]

• 17:48
  • Cberlet threatens page protection [151] after nobs reinserted Cberlet's own language; becomes extremely abusive and threatening.

• 20:45
  • Redundancy of Cberlet's POV pushing [152] followed by his admission nobs is correct [153].
    • (Note: Cberlet's claim that "I (not Nobs) changed it on my next edit" is not true either time he made the same insertion).

• 21:43
  • User:Hob posts on User:Cberlet's talk page,
    • "I started that RfC to try to draw some more attention to the situation, from editors who hadn't already been embroiled in it, some of whom might be able to engage with Nobs & you on the actual content issues - which I can't really do, because of my lack of familiarity with the sources." [154]

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Abuse of processes
Statement(s) of principle states,

• Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

27 September

• 21:50
  • Cberlet claims altering text of primary source documents properly cited is "reasonable". [155] (Ref [156])

29 Septmeber

• 02:24
  • nobs requests of Cberlet evidence RfM is "not an attempt to abuse the process?" [157]

• 19:41
  • nobs serves notice regarding RfM, "Cberlet: You are free to rewrite the Request for Mediation then, I cannot in good faith and good conscience agree to the blatant falsehoods you have stated " [158]

2 October

• 16:08
  • Cberlet begins editing in Mediation session at Talk:Significance of Venona; presents unsourced direct POV criticism of Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division source, ("axe to grind"); impugns Prof. Harvey Klehr, a critic of the NLG with original research assertion. [159]
    • John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division
    • see Harvey Klehr citation at Talk:Chip Berlet#Prof. Harvey Klehr, [160]; also "I freely confess, I have a vested interest in this" [161]

• 20:18
  • personal attack by User:Bk0 [162]

• 20:24
  • nobs responds to personal attack by User:Bk0
    • "No comment." [163]

• 22:57
  • Cberlet deletes nobs response to personal attack by User:Bk0 [164]

7 November

• 14:25:14
  • Cberlet violates good faith in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process at WikiIN-1 by asking others to do a CfD, declaring "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter" [165].

• 15:45:23
  • Fred Bauder sanctions Cberlet's open violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process, declares "I agree with this." [166]

13 November

• 06:07
  • nobs posts cited reference critical of National Lawyers Guild (NLG) support for human rights violations in Afghanistan [167]

15 November

• 17:32
  • nobs posts disclaimer to Talk:Chip Berlet [168]
• 18:32
  • nobs qualifies source of "links and ties" material, Laird Wilcox, foremost analyst[s] of right-and left-wing extremism as per article in The Military Law Review [169]

22 Novemeber

• 15:31
  • Fred Bauder makes principles, findings of fact and remedy before nobs introduces evidence [170][171].

27 November

• 13:19
  • Fred Bauder discloses NLG association [172][173]

15 December

• • ex post facto change in WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources
    • "No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia deleted [174]

17 December

• 21:05
  • personal attack by User:Cberlet on nobs; accuses nobs of being "an apologist for antisemites, fascists, and Nazis" [175]
• 21:59
  • personal attack by User:Cberlet on nobs via edit summary [176][177]

Another Cberlet POV fork

• Cberlet's first entry into an ongoing discussion creates a POV fork [178][179]; admits he did because he was "pissed"; confesses to deleting comment [180].

Nobs01 response to evidence presented by Cberlet

Cberlet alleges Nobs01 to be an uncooperative editor with other editors, who readily admit to their lack of understanding of content, familiarity with sources, or ability to make editorial judgements. Cberlet cites an example: in a detailed discussion relating specifically to Mr. Harry Magdoff, Cberlet is attempting to craft language to apply to 171 other subjects identified by NSA cryptographers in the Venona project. Nobs01 repeatedly has maintained each individual person must be handled upon a case by case basis, which is what was happening in the Talk:Harry Magdoff discussion (and Harry Magdoff and espionage discussion, a POV-folk Cberlet created he now regrets), when an RfC was posted for the overall Venona project. The contents of the Venona project article are very, very different than the detailed contents of Mr. Harry Magdoff's case, yet Cberlet alleges "essentially having the same content dispute". There is no "one size fits all" regarding espionage allegations, as Cberlet presents in his evidence. Justice is not served that way.

Cberlet presents as evidence a legitimate dispute among several editors regarding (a) the name of a federal agency report (b) the problem of still undeclassified footnotes to that report in question [181][182]; after lengthy discussion, nobs was able to get Cberlet to see specifically what the problems were regarding this source, and its citation. Nobs & Cberlet then agreed upon the name [183] and other problems with the document. Cberlet's presentation of earlier discussions here to make misrepresentations that nobs is a difficult or uncooperative editor I believe is evidence of lack of good faith, and an abuse of the Arbitration process.

Let's examine the sources of nobs hyperbolic and exaggerated claims:

• Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan;
• Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States; [184]
• John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division;
• Robert L. Bensen of the National Security Agency Archives; [185]
• Michael Warner, CIA History Staff; [186][187]
• National Cryptological Museum, Custodian of Documents for the Army Signals Intelligence Corp; [188]
• Hayden Peake, Curator of CIA's Historical Intelligence Collection [189][190]
• Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy
• CIA Publications [191]
• Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (formerly NACIC) Frank J. Rafalko, ed.
• U.S. Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage [192]

Most all citations nobs uses are direct quotes and with extensive footnotes to page numbers. If a claim can be cited anywhere in nobs Wikipedia contributions, that a rendition was "exaggerated", distorted or misquoted, I hope it will be brought to my attention.

Now let's examine the sources Cberlet has employed:

• Victor Navasky, The Nation; [193]
• Ellen Schrecker, [194]

Cberlet has presented no other sources in nearly a five month discussion. Mr. Navasky does not rebut any U.S. government published report on the Venona project; his criticism is limited to one secondary source, that of Profs. Haynes & Klehr. Prof. Schrecker's criticism is mentioned in passing within the Introduction to a 1998 book, and she has since reveresed herself twice, quoted [195][196]. Nobs01 has not bothered to rebut these rebuttals, being its the only material Cberlet has to work with. Cberlet's main arguement has been based upon his original research, which is aptly demonstated in nobs presentation of evidence. Let me include, Cberlet's knowledge of Venona project materials appears to have been acquired in discussion with nobs over the past several months, and what documents nobs has brought to his attention. This, in a nutshell, has been the dispute. nobs 19:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to allegation Cberlet was complicit in murder

Cberlet alleges, "Nobs01 suggests that I am complicit in murder", and quotes the Document Abstract [197] from the Washington Post: "The murder of Richard S. Welch was the entirely predictable result of the disclosure tactics chosen by certain American critics".

Three citations:

• "Referring to Counterspy, a Washington Post editorial asked, "What other result than the killing [of Richard Welch] did Mr. [Timothy] Butz and his colleagues at Counterspy expect when they fingered Mr. Welch?"¹²⁶ Butz, incidentally, was on the editorial staff of The Public Eye, along with Chip Berlet and Russ Bellant.¹²⁷

126 Richard S. Welch, Washington Post, (29 December 1975), p. A16. [198]

127 Public Eye Staff, The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3. [199]

• Quoted in Laird Wilcox, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links & ties", subchapter, Chip Berlet and U.S Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies, (Editorial Research Service, 1999), pp. 121-124. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.

• "Public Eye Another spawn of the first Counterspy".

• Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression, (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91) [200]

• "The original Counterspy with which Agee was affiliated began publication with its March 1973 issue; it ceased publishing after its November 1976 issue—until publication was resumed under new management in December 1978."

• Morton H. Halperin and National Security Issues—A Partial Record, Congressional Record, United States Senate - July 15, 1994, pg. S9109.

Note: the Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression cites Chip Berlet as author. Also, nobs posted disclaimers [201][202].

Nobs01 response to evidence presented by Ruy Lopez

Magdoff

The insertion regarding The Nation occurred after what I viewed as a breach of a good faith agreement on the size of Harry Magdoff, and the content of both articles [203][204][205] [206]; Cberlet [207], acting in concert with Ruy Lopez [208][209] began edit warring. Rather than respond by deleting the material they were inserting in breach of an agreement, I inserted onetime criticism of critics which was just as over the top as the bogus claims those two were making. I informed Cberlet as such regarding the breach [210] (Archived diff here [211]), and never reinserted the material. The phrasing included weasel terms, and truthfully this was one time I allowed Cberlet & Ruy Lopez to test my patience, not being familiar with either of them. It does not reflect a personal view (I've been reading The Nation since 1967), but I suspect if a citation was demanded that somebody ever said that, it probably could be produced. What is unfortunate is bringing this up, which I regard as simply more bad faith & ideological warfare. Ideological warfare, bad faith & partisan politics only interest me insofar as they are historical subjects—apart from myself—and I only wish Ruy Lopez and Cberlet could understand that. nobs 06:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Stone

In response to the I.F. Stone page, anyone can see my input on both Talk & the article namespace was extremely limited [212][213]. For the most part, it consisted of little more than bringing forth primary source documents, and making a good faith proposal to Cberlet, a plea to focus on the article, and to cease incivility and personal attacks. As regards Ruy Lopez, I believe contact with him there was non-existent. Ruy Lopez was notified twice [214][215] on his talk page I no longer considered his editing in good faith. I would love to discuss I.F. Stone, because both Cberlet, and Ruy Lopez, acting in concert, have repeatedly made blatantly false statements regarding my editing on this page. User:Timoteo III now takes credit, it so appears, for the edit war Ruy Lopez initiated [216][217][218][219][220] at Alger Hiss. This is not surprising; IMHO, Ruy Lopez, Coqsportif, Timeteo, et.al. all appear to be various sockpuppets of the Research Staff of Political Research Associates, nonetheless let me stress this is only an opinion, and not intended to denigrate any contibutors work.

Remington

I'm gonna allow User:Noel to respond once again to Ruy Lopez, here's the last two times [221][222] (I lost count after six). Also, see 16 Septmeber how Cberlet created an attack subhead [223], acting in concert with Ruy Lopez one minute after he announced "I, and others, like Chip Berlet, have taken a stand" [224], and then was identified as the banned sockpuppet troll who inserted neo-nazi material in the Harry Dexter White article. nobs 03:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to User:Timoteo III

• Disruptive editing to Talk page [225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239]
• Removal of footnoted citations [240][241][242][243][244][245][246]
• Personal attacks. [247][248][249]
• Incivility [250][251][252][253][254]][255]
• Another suspected sockpuppet troll "acting in concert".

nobs 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Timoteo III has repeatedly inserted source material the sources themselves have recanted or scholarship has refuted. One example [256]

Timotheo states,

• "Puts a "Hiss is definitely guilty" opinion quote in introduction."[257], when a click reveals it is nothing more than a properly cited & footnoted [258] direct quotation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom User:Ruy Lopez immediately began edit warring with another user over [259][260][261][262][263].

7 December

• User:Timoteo III alleged contributions rewritten by neutral third party[264] for lack of NPOV

Evidence presented by {Travb}

current edit

• current edit

I stumbled upon this article Chip Berlet which has been a point of contention between the parties and it reads like a resume. I have never seen a single other wikipedia article start out with the entry: "resume".

I am an impartial neutral person, I am not invovled with any of these people, nor their arguments.Travb 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Herschelkrustofsky

Misleading constructions in Cberlet's complaint

16 November, 2005

• Revision as of 14:37, 16 November 2005
  • Cberlet posts misleading purported evidence (diff), claiming that it indicates that "After editorial content disputes with me, Herschelkrustofsky visits Chip Berlet to add negative material." He cites as evidence this diff from June of 2004, not an edit by myself, but rather an edit by User:Bcorr, which followed an edit by me. Compare with my actual edit: [265]

• Revision as of 14:26, 16 November 2005
  • Claiming that "Nobs01, Cognition, Rangerdude Herschelkrustofsky work as team regarding LaRouche and Chip Berlet," Cberlet cites this diff, a message from Cognition asking that I visit an article where (s)he says (s)he is being "stalked by Chip Berlet and Adam Carr." He omits my response (see diff) on Cognition's talk page, where I decline to do so.

• • Claiming that "Nobs01, Cognition, Rangerdude Herschelkrustofsky work as team regarding LaRouche and Chip Berlet," Cberlet cites this diff and this [266], two messages from Nobs01 where he requests that I vote his way on a VfD. He omits my response (see diff) on Nobs' talk page, where I decline to support him on this matter.

21 November

• Revision as of 23:32, 22 November 2005 diff
  • Berlet cites two edits made by me to article Chip Berlet in June of 2004, charging that I made these edits "After editorial content disputes with me [Cberlet]" -- the implication being that I made these edits in retaliation for the editorial content disputes. This accusation merits careful consideration, in light of the fact that I first crossed paths with User:Cberlet on September 20, 2004, when he made his first edit to Chip Berlet (see diff.)

A recent episode that illustrates Berlet's POV pushing, personal attacks and original research

26 October

• Revision as of 00:48, 26 October 2005
  • An anonymous user 80.74.131.252 posts a list of anonymous opinions (diff) in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, complaining that anonymous opinions compromise the neutrality of the article. The anon also claims that some quotes are misleadingly attributed, including some from Berlet's website.

• Revision as of 02:16, 26 October 2005
  • Berlet defends the use of anonymous opinions (diff), claiming that "the editors here have summarized the published work of a number of LaRouche critics." He also directs the anon to this image, which he falsely represents as a "published source."

3 November

• Revision as of 02:14, 3 November 2005
  • Anon user continues to ask that the list of anonymous opinions be attributed (diff.)

4 November

• Revision as of 02:58, 4 November 2005
  • Cberlet claims that "claims of lack of citation are--to be blunt--bogus." (diff.)

• Revision as of 16:17, 4 November 2005
  • Anon reiterates complaint with example, citing WP:AWT (diff.)

• Revision as of 17:12, 4 November 2005
  • Cberlet reponds with personal attack (diff.) Note: the anon has expressed no discernable POV, and has certainly not articulated any "conpiracy theory."

12 November

• Revision as of 04:42, 12 November 2005
  • User:NathanDW renews complaint about anonymous opinions in article, citing WP:AWT (diff.)

15 November

• Revision as of 14:08, 15 November 2005
  • Cberlet provides documentation for one of the anonymous quotes: an unpublished paper by Chip Berlet (diff,) a violation of WP:V. The origin of the numerous remaining cited opinions, attibuted to anonymous "critics," has not yet been established.

Cberlet and original research

21 November

• Revision as of 23:37, 21 November 2005 (diff)
  • Cberlet writes "Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to "publish" a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication?" This suggests that Cberlet does not understand the basis of WP:NOR, and that he conceives of his organization's website and print output as a "quote factory," where he can produce ready-made citations for use in Wikipedia edit disputes. Ironically, his organization PRA is considered by many to be "some marginal website" which produces "some highly POV print publication."

23 November

• Revision as of 15:23, 23 November 2005 (diff)
  • Cberlet further demonstrates that he does not understand WP:NOR or WP:V, by insisting that a source may be considered "published" for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia, because "It was originally published by a mimeograph machine or spirit duplicator."

Selected recent examples of Cberlet's personal attacks

15 October

• Revision as of 01:30, 15 October 2005 diff
  • "I didn't know you were sucking up the the neofascist LaRouchites... So, Dan, still serving as an apologist for conspiracist antisemitism?"

19 November

• Revision as of 03:26, 19 November 2005 diff
  • In response to an innocuous post by myself [267] concerning the appropriate length for article Chip Berlet, Cberlet responds: "HK, we are in arbitration. Get a grip. Stop attacking me all over Wikipedia. Get a sense of boundaries and ethics! You are an uncritical apologist for a neofascist, lunatic, antisemite, and convicted criminal. Desist!" Note that the only times I have mentioned Cberlet or Chip Berlet since February are at Talk:Chip Berlet(see [268]) and on the pages of this Arbcom case.

Response to evidence presented by Cberlet

Cberlet alleges, by implication, that I made a series of edits to article Chip Berlet in order to cause distress, in the way of retaliation for edit conflicts, to eponymous editor Cberlet. This charge would be, by nature, highly speculative. However, the evidence he presents isn't even good circumstantial evidence. Two of the edits (see above) were made before I was even aware that there was a User:Cberlet, and the third diff was part of an ongoing dispute that had gone on for several months, involving many editors. Contrary to Cberlet's claims, my edits were properly sourced to Ramparts magazine and NameBase.org.

Under the circumstances, Cberlet has presented no evidence that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. It appears that he is asking the ArbCom to adjudicate a year-old article content dispute.

Evidence presented by {Cognition}

These charges are frivolous and outrageous. I want everyone to know what this is really about -- attempts by the pawns of Imperialism to smear the LaRouche Movement and anyone else who opposes them. Berelet is motivated by his paranoid hatred of LaRouche, the most prominent supporter in our nation of the Whig tradition American System following great statesmen such as Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Berlet follows Theodor Adorno's lead in his nihilistic revolutionary hatred of this system. He was a key writer at High Times Magazine, making him an important media player within the stoner drug subculure. My best guess is that continued exposure to the dangerous mind-destroying effects of marijuana caused him to take such bizarre opinions about LaRouche. You know what they say about abusers of that drug and paranoia.

The British Empire is the most evil system ever known in world history, and the system which formed the kernel of the web of current Nietzschean masters of the world -- the Synarchist International. It is a worldwide Satanic Roman Empire, a leech feeding off of the misery of oppressed peoples, a genocidal parasitic Beast. It's little known among most Americans the role Britain's East India Company played in subverting the initially republican French Revolution into the Reign of Terror (in a bid to prevent any rivals from emerging on the European continent), or similarly how British Inelligence won for the Queen's financial networks control over the United States, and, at its most demonic, molded the counterculture of the late 1960's to ruin an entire generaion through drugs and pagan sexual ethics. Chip Berlet is a chump-level player/pawn in the stoner elite of the New Left 60's drugs-youth-sex-rock counterculture, a decay upon our civilization which at its height enjoyed such luminaries as the Charles Manson-supporting Weathermen and junkie hack John Lennon. Berlet can be seen as an unwitting agent of British Imperialism. If you follow his latest work, he inevitably spends most of his time atacking the anti-imperialists of the left and right alike, anyone who dares to speak against the Bush-Blair-Sharon axis and their Neo-Conservative cabal providing their ideological basis for continued war on the entire Islamic World. For a poser "rebel," Berlet is the best friend of the Cheney-Bush regime when it comes to the targets he chooses to smear. He can be seen as a low-level bully propagandist in the service of the Neo-Cons, making absurd allegations against anyone who dares to raise certain questions.

My name is mentioned in this case, but the evidence is enormously weak. The edits I have made on wikipedia have all been in keeping with the site's NPOV policy.

Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug in a long-range Aristotelian network, an evil, Venetian-based clique which has found its most demonic individuals in men such as Bertrand Russell, the advocate of nuclear genocide; Adolf Hitler, a perverted figure of anti-christ calibre who was installed into power by British bankers; and the Beatles, generals of a literal "British Invasion," doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs.

The world economy is on the brink of imminent collapse, as meanwhile the Cheney cabal still lusts at the prospect of an invasion of Iran. Berlet, a small-time Goebbels, does their bidding by attacking their most critical opponents. For the world to be saved from catastrope, Mr. LaRouche's brilliant proposals to restore Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and make peace with the world working hand in hand with all nations on Great Projects to bring prosperity to everyone must be adopted. Berlet's intense attacks on the LaRouche movement and on myself as an individual are tantamount to hateful attacks on humanity itself. The moral messages of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam should guide us in our choices and lead us to reject the wicked example of Synarchist International and thwart their maniacal plans for apocalypse. Chip Berlet must not be appeased by this committee.Cognition 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 12:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {Sam Spade}

I don't have alot of time, as I am leaving for france tomorrow, and will have (more) midterms when i return. I can however take a moment to refute the absurd evidence Cberlet presents against me. I hope this clarifies the sort of smear job he expects to make here, rounding up 5 opponents and attempting to have them executed as one, based on outlandish and baseless conspiracy theories. Is there to be a consequence for this sort of bald faced misrepresentation of facts? I fear this sort of thing is Chips speciality. Pay close attention to Cberlets false timeline, with which he either maliciously or ignorantly attempts to skew your interpretation of events.

• <21:52, 8 January 2005>
  • I edit Cberlets article, clarifying it for the self promoting resume it is

• <04:28, 10 May 2005>
  • Cberlet falsely accuses me of plagiarism, much to his embarrassment

• <00:15, 27 May 2005>
  • Cberlet requests formal mediation (after repeatedly refusing informal mediation)

• <03:41, 16 June 2005>
  • Cberlet instructs me to "overhaul my attitude" in reply to my attempt to discuss recent and future edits

• <14:47, 22 June 2005>
  • Cberlet admits to assuming bad faith on my part

• <16:18, 21 June 2005>
  • Cberlet falsely accuses me of vandalism

• <02:05, 21 June 2005>
  • Cberlet comparing statements made by myself to the "homoeroticism of fascism"

• <17:34, 21 June 2005>
  • I suggest to Cberlet that he "chill the fuck out"

Cberlets POV forks / incivility

• Cberlet is currently revert warring @ Far-right ([269], [270], [271]), preventing a merger of redundant POV forks he created: Extreme right, Far right. The purported "discussion" of this @ Talk:Right-wing_politics#Hopelessly_muddled_-_merge makes it clear there is no consensus for what he is trying to do, yet he continues to revert...

His inability to either edit neutrally or to discuss his edits in a civil manner w those he views as his political opposition is unfortunate.

Well, try Fred Bauder 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The last time I tried to urge Cberlet to edit neutrally and tried to discuss his edits with him in a civil manner (see here) he responded by posting this lovely little display of his civility, not to mention half a dozen other snide comments and edit summaries just like it. Rangerdude 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at his ongoing personal attacks @ Talk:Right-wing_politics#Hopelessly_muddled_-_merge. Sam Spade 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• 15:55, 29 November 2005
  • Cberlet advises me to "get a grip" and to "relax" when I articulate my objections to his POV forks. He then immediately proceeds to dialogue w an editor who generally shares his POV, attempting to pursuade them regarding his ideas on this particular (ignoring my concerns).

• 18:33, 2 December 2005
  • Cberlet states: "Sam Spade does not have time for substantive edits; does not have access to the basic texts in the field; apparently has not read them; is not willing or not able to cite any published sources for his views; but Sam Spade is willing to enforce his views on how this and eight other pages relating to right-wing politics are handled here on Wikipedia."

• 17:42, 4 December 2005
  • Cberlet states: "you had a childish temper tantrum and reverted all of my work, making snide comments in the process." as description of my response to his POV forks.

• 22:13, 4 December 2005
  • Cberlet underscores his inability to be witnessed engaging in civil discussion, and the danger this poses to his ArbCom case.

Evidence presented by User:Zirkon

Short statement of intend:

The evidences given here are intended to show the behavior of user Cberlet in a dispute about the legal term "fair comment" and if this term should be recogniceable as a legal term in the wikipedia article Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

Ad hominem remarks, Appeal to motive and Judgemental language among others used as tools to avoid answering justified questions and avoiding cooperation:

• Please stop trying to invent a way to explain a court decision when none is needed. --Cberlet 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[272]
• The court ruling is a matter of public record. Attempts to craft apologia for the long track recond of LaRouche's antisemitism are POV. This page threats LaRouche fairly.--Cberlet 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[273]
• Stop this ridiculous nit-picking.--Cberlet 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[274]
• Ridiculous waste of time. Pedantic. Pointless. Attempt to rewrite history. You asked for my comments. I have answered honestly--Cberlet 19:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[275]
• Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite to make it seem that LaRouche is not a notorious anti-Semite--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[276]
• but since you are attempting to write an apologia for [Political views of Lyndon LaRouche|Lyndon LaRouche] on another page--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[277]
• Please stop trying to rewrite the facts of the laws of defamation to apologize for LaRouche's antisemitism.--Cberlet 00:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[278]
• Wow! I am very sorry, but much of --Zirkon's text appears to me to be pseudo-intellectual gibberish.(...)Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[279]
• (...) It still seems to me to be a lot of verbiage that results in the same situation that existed before: fancy footwork by a POV warrior out to defend LaRouche from the obvious and well-documented published claim that LaRouche is an antisemite. Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[280]
• We do not need to misrepresent the law of defamation to arrive at that conclusion--Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[281]

Claiming things that are demonstratable false

• Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite (...) Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC) [282]

It should be noted that Mr. Berlet was given the chance to change the words:

(...)

• Following your statement you will delete the statement: ...”that you are trying to rewrite”... (see summery)?

(...) Zirkon 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[283]

Rewriting of an wikipedia aritcle seemingly just to "show" that the author intentionaly misrepresented the actual meaning of a legal term:

To make the texts comparable I had to do a sentence by sentence analysis of all three articles. Since Mr. Berlet directly accused me of intentionaly misrepresenting the meaning of a legal term and therefore smeard my reputation I had to do this.

What follows is the analysis and its conclusions:

Analysis of All "Fair Comment" Wikipedia Articles so far

Why I do this:

“I note that Zirkon created a Wikipedia page on fair comment that mischaracterised the actual complicated legal meaning of the term in a way that supports the LaRouchite line on the New York defamation case.” (...) Cberlet 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [284] (emphasis added)

Following this statement it is nessary for me to show the reader that my own work (the copyedited version of Willmcw) does in fact echo the understanding of fair comment from the external source. '

First Version of the wikipedia article Fair comment:

Fair comment is a legal term for a defense used in defamation cases. It holds that when a public figure is defamed, even with an absurd or false accusation, they must prove that the opinion was stated maliciously (with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm) in order for defamation to have occured.

A legal case in which the plaintiff looses against the defendend on reasons of "fair comment" does therefore not mean that the comment issued by the defendant was justified or fair, but that the plaintiff could not prove the bad intentions of the defendant conclusively.

While this phrase was in use before it became a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964.

External Links dictionary law.com

Source article version:

Following the Link: dictionary law.com one can find the source article upon which the findings of the first Wikipedia article were based. I refrain from directly posting the whole article since I am not certain about the copyright issues in this context.

Second wikipedia article version of "Fair comment" from Cberlet (with additons by Slimvirgin)

Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation cases (libel or slander).

United States In the United States, the traditonal privilege of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures. Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff."[1].

The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), (U.S. Supreme Court). This case relied on the issue of actual malice, which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false. If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superceded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice."

Each state writes its own laws of defamation, and the laws and previously decided precedants in each state vary. In many states, (including Alabama where the case of Times v. Sullivan originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan.[2]

It is still technically possible to rely only on the common law defense of "fair comment," but since there is no federal law of defamation, the Times v. Sullivan case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, extends over state laws as a powerful legal precedant, and it provides more legal protection to a defendant, since under the concept of "actual malice," the absolute truth of the assertion need not be demonstrated.

For more on U.S. defamation laws, see: Media Libel - University of Houston

Canada

In Canada, for something to constitute fair comment, the comment must be on a matter of public interest (excluding gossip), a fair and honest expression of the author's opinion, based on known and provable facts, and with no actual malice underlying it. The cardinal test of whether a statement is fair comment is whether the author honestly believed the opinion, and whether it could be drawn from the known facts. It should also be obvious that the comment is an opinion and is not purporting to be a fact (Crawford 2002, pp. 48-52). (See Chernesky v. Armadale Publications Ltd. [1978] 6 W.W.R. 618 (S.C.C.))

References dictionary law.com Media Libel - University of Houston Opinion: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Crawford, Michael G. The Journalist's Legal Guide, Carswell, 2002

Comparison and Analysis

To make a comparison and an analysis of the 3 Versions (1. wikipedia article, wikipeda cited source article, 2. wikipedia article) I have made a sentence by sentence core statement analysis of every version. The letters in each Version are followed by a descriptive headline for the sentence that is beeing analized. Under the sentence Headline is the quote of the analized sentence. The core statements of the sentence are numbered for reference.

Ver 1 (= 1. Wikipedia article)

Core statements of Version 1

A) Fair comment is a legal term.

“Fair comment is a legal term for a defense used in defamation cases.”

B) Fair comment definition:

”It holds that when a public figure is defamed, even with an absurd or false accusation, they must prove that the opinion was stated maliciously (with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm) in order for defamation to have occured.”

1. -This includes the points that malicouse intend has to be proofed. (This is commonly done in the following way: plaintive has to proofe that the defendend used the defaming words knowing that they were wrong (i.e. false, baseless etc.).)
2. -By inversion this definiton says that “fair comment” does not qualify an opinion held by the defendend as true or not true. (As it is only nessary for the defendent to show that he did not act with malicouse intentions – As it is only nessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendend did act with malicouse intentions for the defense of fair comment to fail.).

C) Explanation of definiton:

“A legal case in which the plaintiff looses against the defendend on reasons of "fair comment" does therefore not mean that the comment issued by the defendant was justified or fair, but that the plaintiff could not prove the bad intentions of the defendant conclusively.”

1. -Explanation that the legal term fair comment does not a qualify a statement. In essence again the definition of “fair comment” but inverted. Or in other words the definition of something shows what it is, but in defining what something is you also define what something – implicitly - is not.

Ver 2 (= Source article of 1. wikipedia article)

Core statements of version 2

A) “fair comment” definition:

“a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment.”

1. -F.C. makes no qualifing statement about the opinion.
2. -F.C. can only be used when the facts are correctly stated.
3. -Dishonorable motives are not what led the statement of opinion maker.

B) Explanation of definition:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm.”

1. - F.C. in its current form is based on a US S.C. decision.
2. - F.C. is there to protect free speech.
3. - F.C. is only usable on a public person
4. - F.C. does not evaluate (qualify) the statement made nor the effects thay may have
5. - F.C. the victim (public person) has to be unable to prove the bad intentions against the victim.

C) limits of Fair Comment:

Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment.

1. - F.C. as a defense can only be used against a public figure.
2. - F.C. a private person could sue for defamation against an opinion or comment.

D) Used as a defense:

This is a crucial defense against libel suits put up by members of the media.

1. - F.C. It is a legal defense mostly used by the media.

Ver 3 (= 2. Wikipedia article (version of Cberlet))

Core statements of version 3

A) Single sentence definiton

“Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation case.”

1. - F.C. is a legal term.

B) Lead in:

“In the United States, the traditonal privilege of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

1. -F.C. as used in the U.S.
2. -F.C. is a traditional privilege
3. -F.C. is a protection for opinions spoken or pulished whatever those opinions may be
4. -F.C. is usable only as a defense against public figures

C) Definition

“Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff."[1].”

1. -F.C. is a common law defense
2. -F.C. helps to guarantee the freedom of the press to express statements
3. -F.C. is only usable on matters of public interest.
4. -F.C. cannot be used if the statements were used with bad intentions against the plaintiff

D) History of the defense

“The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), (U.S. Supreme Court).”

1. -the way F.C.was used has largely been replaced by a US SC ruling since 1964.

E) Specifics of the historical case: actual malice

“This case relied on the issue of actual malice, which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false. “

1. -Defintion of actual malice

F) Connection between actual malice and the “fair comment” defense

“If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superceded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice." ”

1. -actual malice must be proven.
2. -failure to show actual malice means the defense of “fair comment” stands regardless of what the actual (local) definition of “fair comment” is.

G) About the laws of defamation

“Each state writes its own laws of defamation, and the laws and previously decided precedants in each state vary. “

1. -defamation law is state law.

H) About how the “fair comment” defense is implemented in many states

“In many states, (including Alabama where the case of Times v. Sullivan originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan.[2]

1. -F.C. must be based on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based.
2. -That F.C. must be based on true facts is a requirement in many states. Inversion: If the facts upon which a voiced published oppinon (whatever the oppinion may be) is based are not true then F.C. can not be used.
3. -F.C. must be based on true facts in Alabama.
4. -The statements of this sentence are based on U.S.S.C. Justice Brennan.
5. -The statements are based on the written form of the U.S.S.C. ruling.

I)Practial use of “fair comment” following the introduction of “actual malice”

“It is still technically possible to rely only on the common law defense of "fair comment," but since there is no federal law of defamation, the Times v. Sullivan case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, extends over state laws as a powerful legal precedant, and it provides more legal protection to a defendant, since under the concept of "actual malice," the absolute truth of the assertion need not be demonstrated.”

1. F.C. is a defense that can technically rely only on the common law defense but the absolute truth of the comment (assertion) has to be demonstrated.
2. F.C. as State law is now normaly overshadowed by the U.S.S.C precedant case ruling.
3. ”Actual malice” is a concept
4. The absolute truth of the comment (assertion) of the defendant does not have to be demonstrated since the U.S.S.C. precedent ruling to use “fair comment”.

Following this sentance by sentance analysis I make these observations

1. There is no apparant mischaracterisation of “Fair Comment” in version 1 compared to external source (version 2).
2. All three versions do have deficits. It should be possible to construct a new version that includes the best of all three versions.
3. There is a logical break within the version of Mr. Berlet:

Statement I)1 and its inversion I)4 is not compatible to the statements of B)3 and C)4

Why?

a)

“Assertion” is not defined in this context explicidly.

b)

If by implication “assertion” is actually another word for comment of the defendend than it is - following I)1 and I)4 - nessesary to proofe under the traditional understanding of F.C. that the comment is true. B)3 explains that comments are protected whatever they may be. Therefore for the traditional defense of F.C. to work one must proofe that the comment the defendend made is true. But comments are protected whatever they may be – even if not true.

c)

C)4 states therefore that true statements/comments can not be used when they were made with bad intentions against the plaintiff.

Conclusions

1. The allegations that I mischaracterised the definition of "Fair comment" to further an agenda are false.
2. Mr. Berlet makes crucial logical errors in his wikipedia article version of "fair comment".
3. If Mr. Berlet does not change the last paragraph of his 3. Version this should be done for him.
4. It is not possible to know if Mr. Berlet made those errors on purpose. But it is certain that he expressed that his Point of View was in danger. As can be demonstrated by the fact that I was constantly accused of rewriting history or of trying to fabricate apologia. Further investigations will reveal that he constantly evaded questions concerning his views upon the topic.

Evidence presented by User:Ruy Lopez

I was going to stay out of this since I do not have the time to follow this through, but I can not resist.

Lack of NPOV

Nobs01 has made many, many, many POV edits. Many people revert his edits on many pages, yet he keeps reverting back to his version. I want to avoid personal attacks, but I don't know any other way to say it but that he is a crank, pure and simple.

Harry Magdoff

Nobs01 and The Nation

Here [285] is an example of the way out perspective Nobs01 has. In the article, it talks about an editorial in The Nation, a magazine virtually every mainstream liberal in the past century has written for at one time or another. The Wikipedia article says that a Nation editorial was critical of a certain interpretation of VENONA transcripts. Nobs01 counters by inserting that the Nation has "been referred to as a 'Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece'". This would be like saying the National Review has been referred to as "a Nazi-directed fascist mouthpiece". And who is this mysterious referrer who is not mentioned - Bebe Rebozo? Nobs01's uncle?

Good example of an over the top characterization of a critical source. Fred Bauder 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry Magdoff in general

I was appalled when I first came across the Harry Magdoff article, which was created by Nobs. Here is the article circa June 14[286], where the entire article is by Nobs, except for a minor edit by Gabbe that wikified some words. Paragraph 1 makes great strains to connect Magdoff to the Comintern. How? Magdoff was in a club at City College. Some people in the club later joined a Brigade. The brigade has associations to the Comintern. Paragraph 1 also calls Magdoff a liar. Paragraph 2 says Magdoff was friends with a "Soviet spy", David Weintraub. It is an unqualified fact Weintraub is a spy, in Nobs-world. Of course, he was never prosecuted for this. So mud is thrown at Magdoff for associating with a spy, when in fact there is no evidence Weintraub is a spy. Paragraph 3 says "Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies." So now Magdoff is a spy too. Nobs01 feels quite free to accuse people - without qualification - WITHOUT QUALIFICATION - of being spies. They are spies, period, declaration, end of sentence, fact.

Now I could include this in the section of just another Nobs accusation of people being spies without any qualification, but that is not what I found shocking about this. The shocking thing is anyone coming across this encyclopedia entry would know mostly about Harry Magdoff as being a liar (paragraph 1), an associator with "spies" (paragraph 2), and a spy himself. Not mentioned at all was his being a speechwriter for former vice-president to FDR, Henry Wallace. Not mentioned at all is his publication of The Age of Imperialism , which sold over 100,000 copies, all the more remarkable because it was self-published. And most importantly, it makes no mention of the Monthly Review. Imagine writing a 292 word biography of Harry Magdoff and not mentioning Monthly Review at all, that being unimportant, but having it mentioned he knew some fellow named Weintraub, who is called a spy, unqualifiedly and without proof. To use the National Review comparison I used above, it would be like writing a 292 word article about William F. Buckley and not mentioning the National Review. Even that's not fair - Buckley had his own television show. Yet if you go back to the first entry on Buckley, which is 135 words, it mentions the National Review. Nobs01's 292 word article does not mention the Monthly Review at all.

Thankfully, people like myself, Viajero, Chip Berlet and so forth found this ghastly Harry Magdoff bio that Nobs had wrote, and the current[287] version is much better and well-rounded. Just compare the current, good version to the twisted Nobs01 version I posted above. You will see how Nobs is a POV-pushing crank.

Unqualified slander

One thing Nobs01 has done across countless articles is accuse people of being spies, without qualification.

IF Stone

Here's one example for IF Stone[288].

Stone’s fear "was his unwillingness to spoil his career" since he “earned $1500.00 per month but...would not be averse to having a supplemental income.”

Now, if you actually look at the document being referred to[289], it says "54 groups unrecoverable", meaning the 54 or so paragraphs before this sentence are missing. Then the sentence is "His fear is primarily explained by his unwillingness to spoil his career". Now how did "he" become "Stone"? First of all, the 54 paragraphs preceding this sentence are missing, so we have no idea who the he being referred to is. 54 paragraphs back, a Soviet contact with a code name PANCAKE is referred to. We have no idea if the he being referred to 54 paragraphs later is PANCAKE or not. Some anonymous US intelligence spook (not the one who transcribed this probably) thought that the best profile match for PANCAKE was IF Stone, which is why this is noted at the bottom. This does not set in stone who PANCAKE was though, many guesses by US intelligence of who matched up to a code name were guesses made with very little evidence. It is sort of like doing a crossword puzzle - you know that the 3rd letter of the answer is "E", *if* you got the perpendicular answer right as well, in the same manner since you think code name A may be John Doe, and since in the transcripts code name A knows code name B, maybe code name B is Jane Doe.

Yet Nobs01 puts unqualifiedly that it was not "he" (who may or may not be PANCAKE), it was not PANCAKE - it was IF Stone who sat down and discussed possible espionage with a Soviet spymaster. WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Without even saying, "It may have been Stone", he simply says it was Stone. And Nobs01 puts these slanders against prominent Democrats and progressives over and over and over again, some of whom are still alive. And as someone else said, as Nobs01 spreads these unqualified slanders throughout Wikipedia, the chances become greater one will run afoul of someone less magnanimous than John Seigenthaler Sr.

Looking at a Venona cable is an exercise in original research no matter who does it. I see the same thing Nob01 sees but would not use it in a Wikipedia article, since the conclusion I draw, just like yours is based on my ability to cipher out an incomplete document. Put 2 and 2 together when one of the 2's is missing. The same material ascribed to Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism would not be a problem. Although it still might be wrong. Fred Bauder 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

William Remington

Let us look at Nobs01's article creation of William Remington[290]

Remington supplied Elizabeth Bentley for transmission to the Soviet Union information such as: charts setting out aircraft produciton and other matters concerning the aircraft industry; tests made on aircraft and other data concerninbg (sic) high octane gasoline; other information related to the aircraft production field; and a process for the manufacture of synthetic rubber.

As I've said before, Nobs01 does not qualify anything. This does not say "Bentley claims Remington supplied her with information for transmission to the Soviet Union...." That is fine, that is a fact. No, Nobs01 decides what Bentley (who was an incredibly flaky, disturbed and mentally unbalanced woman, who J. Edgar Hoover even sought to distance himself from eventually) says is the truth, what Remington or courts or newspapers or anybody says is not, and thus it will be stated as a fact that this happened.

Not mentioned in this - Remington sued Bentley for libel after she said this. She dodged the subpoena, and on November 13, 1948 headlines regarding this ran in the New York papers - The New York Daily Mirror ran the headline "RED WITNESS MISSING AT 100-G SLANDER SUIT", the New York Times ran the headline "REMINGTON LAWYER SEEKS MISS BENTLEY". Remington's lawyers showed in court how Bentley often contradicted herself. Bentley lost her libel case and Remington won several thousand dollars.

When I qualified Nobs01's accusations of Remington as a spy, saying Bentley claimed such-and-such instead it being a fact that Remington said so and so, and when I inserted the stuff about the libel suit, the newspaper headlines and the judgement, Nobs01 erased[291] all of that. I ask of ArbCom to look at the facts of this, and look at this revert, one of many ([292] [293] [294]), he removed the qualifications to his accusations and any news of the libel judgement or newspaper articles about this repeatedly.

It happened, but it is more about Bentley than Remington. Whether that should all be in the article is a close question, guess it should be if simply because it is interesting, does nothing to prove Remington innocent though. Perhaps Nobs thought it did. You don't think it does do you? Fred Bauder 02:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it's about Bentley more than Remington, when Nobs01 removed it from the Remington page I put it on the Bentley page - and Nobs01 removed it from the Bentley page[295] as well. So apparently he doesn't think it's more about her than him. I think if it's relevant to Remington's article that Bentley accused Remington of being a spy (a qualification of mine that Nobs01 removed, he just said he was a spy), that it's relevant that when Remington sued Bentley in court for libel for calling him a spy, she lost. I don't understand what you're trying to say - her accusation that he was a spy is relevant, but her losing a libel case in court on that question is irrelevant? Ruy Lopez 02:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem of proof. She could testify about her own experience, but what else did she have to prove anything? Eventually it was found that the fantastic things she was saying were probably true. But at that time she was a sitting duck. Fred Bauder 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet

Everything I have to say about CBerlet is good. Cberlet is a noted authority in his field. Something Wikipedia always talks about - well he is one. And he is being beset by cranks such as Nobs01.

I also want to add that Cberlet was *recruited* to deal with Nobs01 (not by me). He was asked to get involved because he is respected, level-headed and all of that stuff.

Evidence presented by User:Timoteo III

This concerns major issues with nobs work on the Alger Hiss article and a strong attempt to insert anti-Hiss bias and undermine voice of other side. User nobs is addressed with several concerns and typically ignores questions for strawman rebuttal.

POV Edits

Often claims nonsensical NPOV violation whenever citated facts suggesting Alger Hiss's innocence are presented; promotes a one-sided view that approvingly quotes anti-Hiss sources while deleting competitive views. Inserts personal POV edits across entire article against Alger Hiss, often hyperboles that deviate significantly from the given references or citations. Adds several POV quotes without adequately defending their relevance, their veracity, or their proper place within the article. Uses Peacock term "incontrovertibly" to describe evidence with well-known criticism and acceded inaccuracies by ALL sources (Gorsky memo re: wrong date).

The Best of the Worst

[296]Nobs deletes some ALES = Alger skepticism w/o comment in edit or discussion page.

[297]Nobs dominates edit history

[298]Nob inserts "enemy of humanity" quote. Note that truncated quote is likely a partisan mischaracterization and an out-of-context smear against Joel Kovel (which is also unsourced). Furthermore, the position was merely NAMED after Alger Hiss, Hiss has no responsibility or control for that person. This is an undefendable smear against both Koel and Hiss. Deleted by another [299]

[300]Nobs inserts Alger Hiss's supposed involvement with the Ware group as an undisputed bio fact, does not reveal information to be the allegations of Chambers.

[301]Second addition makes no sense in using "confirmed", everyone already knew for a fact that Alger Hiss went to Moscow. This seems to a deliberate attempt to blur the distinction between Alger and ALES in VENONA.

[302]Once again, allegations of spy work are added as uncited historical fact, with no qualifications of subjectivity or who the accusers are.

And again [303]

[304]Uses loaded term "Western betrayal" to describe Yalta Conference, and implies undue culpability on Hiss for entire result of Conference despite junior official status.

[305]Reinserts old POV drivel deleted by another editor, accidentally wipes out some of his new POV drivel but reinserts it here [306]

[307]Inserts "alleged" when FOIA suit revealed indisputable misconduct by the FBI from their own files (intense survelliance of Hiss, mail reading, plants in the defense team, etc). The extent and gravity of their actions is debatable, but misconduct is a matter of fact by the FBI's own files.

[308] Dirty and ridiculous POV rewording. Alger Hiss worked extensively in a Boston law firm. Apparently he should have individually applied to all 50 state bars simply to prove a point in Nobs view.

[309] A poster generously qualifies Nobs "facts".

[310] Weakens qualifications, so that Noel Field is now definitely Hiss's recruitment and unnamed "evidence" points against Hiss.

[311]Deletes information of some ALGER, Alger bio mismatch w/ dubious reason, then adds a certainty statement about ALGER = Ales below.

[312]Puts a "Hiss is definitely guilty" opinion quote in introduction.

Note - meant this instead, same difference. [313] The point is that Nobs deliberately promotes his "side" into the introduction (giving it undue weight) which is of course unfair. This is still a controversy and should be treated as such, not as a personal homage to anti-Hiss smack talk. Again nobs points out citation as if THAT was the problem, not usage and POV favoritism. A pattern of behavior I might add...

[314] Places ridiculous emphasis on one man's opinionated quote by linking it to "incontrovertible evidence"

[315] Bye bye skepticism info about ALES being too close a name for Alger for Soviet intel to safely use, no indication that codename ID is almost always a matter of deductive reasoning, subject to guesswork and personal bias.

[316] Repeatedly cites more sources w/o acknowledging that the methodolgy of the identification is important, if they are also using VENONA to implicate Alger as ALES it's meaningless circular reasoning. The citation excuse is again employed to cover misrepresentation of facts.

Another deleted qualifer [317]

[318] Inserts random assertions by people on the internet (masking unknown "Joesph T Major" behind Weinstein) to definitively position Alger as ALES [319]

[320]More citation dishonesty by twisting an obvious contention or thesis of Weinstein into some sort of apparent fact Weinstein stumbled upon.

[321] Overwrites much of Lowenthal argument w/ personal, poorly-worded, and often nonsensical rebuttal, as if article was his personal editorial.

[322] Inserts a rather half-baked accusation that Hiss was dealing w/ atomic information, though that oddly didn't seem to come up at his trial if true (see the date of the committee report being before the trial 1946 is way before 1949, 1st trial). I suspect Tom Murphy would have caught on if there was merit to this line of thinking, as it is a terrible thing to trade nuclear secrets. Quote is impossible to judge in context, suspicious use of ellipses. And doesn't provide a secondary source to access very difficult-to-locate primary one.

[323] Allegations again become historical facts [324]

[325] Nobs is not qualified to tell ppl that Lowenthal is confusing issues, but inserts "nifty argument" snark anyway for others to clean up Again [326] and again [327]

[328]Nobs is insipidly fixated on the fact Moniyihan simply puffed up his opinion using the word conclusive, points to a legal definition when that was not even the context by Moniyihan. Likely a double standard since many people believe Alger Hiss was "conclusively" innocence.

[329] Another condemning POV quote w/ no informative value and partisan language. Many still believe in Hiss, evidenced by Lowenthal and Victor from the Nation. Others are neutral like James Thomas Gay Is it even real? [330]

[331] Deletes important background

[332] Promotes anti-Hiss quote to the top intro.

[333]Rather than toning down rebuttal, Nobs simply deletes it from view.

[334]Nobs refuses compromise and seperation of professor's argument and (his personal) rebuttal.

Nobs promotes himself as a historian ([335]), nonsensical and false again. See "the Russian Ministry of Defense and Soviet Army Archives (successor agency to the GRU)" under [336]

[337] I do not know what the Glasser statement is trying to say beyond what Nobs POV is. "This document also identifies Alger Hiss as a longtime Soviet agent who worked in the U.S. State Department." is hyperbole, sources may be unwitting, extent of relationship never given in memo.

[338] Reinserts term loaded "Western betrayl." Unnecessary and definitely POV

---

I now enter the picture, discovering this page by looking at Joseph McCarthy. I tagged it with NPOV (leaving the POV slurs alone at first) to foster discussion, as it was rabidly anti-Hiss by now, often in an editorial manner [339]. Nobs removes NPOV w/o asking and kills more qualifiers. [340] "who was 10 years old at the time" is a new addition, and might I say particularily idiotic. Dean was recounting relevations found later in the Nixon White House. If this fact is even true, it is extremely irrelevant, underhanded, and dishonest. I don't know what Nobs was thinking that could be in good faith.

To remedy situation, Massive reformat, new Innocence & Guilt Sections by me [341]

---

[342] In response to the new format, nobs liberally deletes A LOT of the pro-Hiss section (much of which had vanished and had to be dregged up from history and my own work) and bumps an obvious anti-Hiss quote to the top, instead of confining it to the intro in the anti-Hiss section. The beggining of bad times...

Nobs deletes true information for personal fantasy. This was the actual language found in the source. Nobs forgets he does not count as a historian. [343] [344]

This info was already found and cited in the older version article, before mysteriously vanishing in silence. Nobs however pounces on obviously well-known info w/o asking for a citation from me first. He does it in bits [345] [346]

[347] Nobs rewords sentence in a misleading way. Random House never had the rights to publish the archives, and they most certainly did not do so. All they had was exclusive ACCESS gained by big $$$

[348] This addition is almost certainly false. Nobs backs it up w/ nothing, and then later what I find out to be fraudelent sources.

[349] Reinserted Lowethnal sans nobs muck. Why it disappeared and why nobs neglected to restore it are unknown.

[350] see Sayre controversy

Note: nobs is very offended that the article does not entirely carter to anti-Hiss POV and constantly complains of NPOV convention. To appease him, I generously put in some references to Hiss critics. [351]

[352] Nobs inserts an irrelevant (had nothing to do w/ scholarship issues) and inflammatory anti-Hiss POV quote in the "Case for Alger Hiss's Innocence" section. Vandalism of format, noncooperation, ill intent, silly justication excuses on talk pages.

[353] Strawman rebuttal. Noncooperation. Refusal to engage editor honestly. The source was perfectly fine, its usage was the problem (this was clarified MANY times in talk, to no avail). Vandalism of format w/ inflammatory and non-informative anti-Hiss quote continues unabated.

[354] What is wrong w/ this picture (see comments) [355] Feigning confusion to avoid actual justification?

[356] Adds noncredible source to back Sayre statement, though this is what I assume it was supposed to do. Even if source were credible, it had nothing to do w/ anyone's Congressional testimony, certainly not Sayre's. No idea how this works in his mind. [357]

[358] Added link to Gorksy memo and del "incontrovertibly" b/c that article did controvert it and it was a Peacock term. Repeatedly undone by Nobs

[359] Added relevant Vassiliev quotes that revealed doubts on ALES = Alger idea. Nobs shows no comment while repeatedly deleting them.

Vandalism of Format

When I first came across the Alger Hiss page, I recognized it immediately as being highly biased agaist Alger Hiss. Other users were trying to insert balance, but it was constantly debated and overwritten by Nobs. To amelioate the situation, I implemented a new format that I hoped would end the constant edit wars. The intial biographical sections were rewritten to be strictly neutral, and at the end there were two new major sections to provide each side a place to present their case (innocence vs. guilt). All the users, including nobs, expressed satisification with the new format over the old. Initially, this worked very well, until nobs started to place his blatant and irrelevant POV content in the pro-Hiss and neutral sections instead of confining himself to the proper area.

Led to major edit war concerning this:

• Places a nonsensical quote by Vassilev in the middle of that section, obviously anti-Hiss, obviously irrelevant to question of scholarship quality raised by the section. Refused to move anti-Hiss quote to anti-Hiss section. When asked about relevancy or how it even defended scholarship quality, nobs doesn't answer. Responds by pointing to source as PBS, when user never questioned whether Vassliev said these words, only that they were irrelevant, misplaced, and lacked informative value. No answer, no effort at compromise, no backing down

Deletions of Unfavorable Arguments

• Deletes criticism about famous critic Weinstein by his own co-author Vassiliev (no effort to convince others of deletion)
• Slowly cuts down Lowenthal argument, then wipes it totally (no effort to convince others of deletion) (reinserted by myself)
• Fights over and then deletes well-known reference to General Volkogonov's exoneration of Hiss. (reinserted by myself)
• Deletes numerous qualifers for own edits and replaces them with ludicious authoritative statements like "incontrovertibly."

Evidence of False Statement with False Citation(s)

Worst infraction involves false statement with false sources, see Sayre testimony controversy on Alger Hiss:Talk

nobs gives a very doubtful statement backed initially by no citation. When notified of this problem, nobs responds by including an impossible citation to HUAC committee. Long debate follows. Nobs provides a "quote" representing the supposed Congressional testimony of Sayre to justify statement. Quote seems odd and incongruent with historical fact, and google search reveals only ONE online source with these words. This source adamantly contradicts Nobs assertion that this was Sayre's congressional testimony, but contains some of the exact dialogue as a completely different event. This source is also highly unreliable, as a work by Douglass Reed, a noted anti-Zionist world conspirasist. Nobs denies Douglass Reed as his true source, and provides four more citations that fail to support the orginal statement in any way. Nobs refuses to back down on this sentence and continues an edit war.

Smears by Nobs against this User

• Nobs calls my effort to cite the libel case agianst Weinstein for book Perjury (one where Weinstein settled out of court, retracted sections, and payed 5-figure sum to one of his sources who brought on the suit) a "hit job", accused me of POV in a section designated "The Case for Alger Hiss's Innocence." Does nothing with the section the "Case against Alger Hiss" to address his supposed complaints of NPOV in the "Critique of Critics" subsection.
• Nobs frequently characterizes all criticism (using hyperboles, bad sources, misused sources, etc) as personal attacks, whenever possible insinuating incompetence, prejudice, B.S., on the part of this user even in the face of hard evidence echoing my criticism. Calls well-cited statements "my original research", calls his unsupported statements self-evident and often makes it my responsiblity to show that they aren't true at all (see the Black Chambers debate on the Alger Hiss talk page - note how Nobs didn't read his own link and gets the facts woefully wrong).
• When I compiled the debacle regarding the great Sayre controversy, he called it a personal attack (editor nobs was the only editor pushing this Sayre piece, my compilation showed all the factual problems with his edits for Sayre), and how everything was wrong but obviously it was all personal and the evidence of his wrong-doing just didn't count somehow. For the record, I asked nobs to remove his Sayre edits and continue working with me in a more collaborative manner. My olive branch was wholly ignored for more comments about my apparent war crimes and my failures as a human being.
• He accused me of being pretending to be a mind-reader when I pointed out his apparent misunderstanding of what actual POV is (NPOV for the record does not mean editing out the facts that may support a POV you don't like, while keeping your own POV well voiced). I never surmised the motives behinds nobs work, only his error-ridden methodology and misunderstandings leading to these problems. No retraction...
• I am a new editor and nobs has not missed his opportunity to exploit my early mistakes for more baseless accusations. When I was working on the article, Nobs made a series of rabid-fire edits to the article and the talk page that I felt needed immediate comment. I neglected to sign in my sig all the time, but made it very clear that it was me, Timoteo, who was doing it by manually writing my own name and continuing arguments I had already sigged as my own. This did not matter to nobs, who whined and whined about my early mistakes and a "anonymous poster" who was obviously me. On at least two occasions, I firmly stated that I was user 168.122.236.22 and I had simply not gotten into the habit of signing in all the time. Nobs ignores this and parrots more complaints.
• He accused me of vandalism for deleting one of his signatures in the talk page (sees nobs "resigned" comment near Gorsky). As the history pages obviously show [360] the Paragraph ending w/ "...one time breach of security by the MGB" was NEVER SIGNED. Nobs assigns his own failures to me, without apology or correction. He similarily accuses me of nearly every Wiki editor crime under the sun without evidence.
• Nobs vandalizes my own talk sections. He overwrites (see my additional Google searches for phony Sayre testimony that disappeared for a time) my work, but I warn him and assume in good faith that it was accidental. In turn, nobs accuses me of full vandalism over the fake signature issue above, which is totally bogus.
• Nobs moves my sections around and that is okay. I move his sections around to the proper sections and then it somehow becomes vandalism. Nobs refuses to show proper chronological order in the Sayre mess, and shows after-the-fact citations (third and fourth iterations after the first two were shot down for being false) above my work and below - repeated for no apparent reason besides dishonest representation.
• Defames this user for violating nearly all Wiki editorial policies without justification, while liberally violating them for his own gain.

More Mean-Spiritedness

• Nobs often fails to address the obvious concerns in other editors complaints, and instead gives strawman rebuttals without answering the original issues. He answers the Nixon scandal debate by arguing that the Executive Branch is responsible for prosecution, not the Legislation. Very true, and wholly unrelated to absolutely anything being discussed. This is quite typical, with some "water is wet" comment that fails to counter any of the criticism. Nobs very often seizes some imaginary point and argues against that, like in the Moynihan debate, where he ignored most of the points and parrots the fact that Moynihan committee was a government source. He does not address the fact that he is in reality repeating the same biased opinion from Daniel Moynihan already in the article, or that there is nothing in the Moynihan Committee report that indicates its mission was to look into the Alger Hiss controversy, that it ever debated the matter, or that it ever purported to be rendering an official judgment on Alger Hiss. Nobs deliberately twists a throw-away line in the appendix section authored by who knows into some sort of authoriative statement by the US government on Alger Hiss. That could not be further from the truth, but in an effort at compromise I allowed it to stay.
• Bullit. Nobs tells me of "French sources" purporting to implicate Hiss. Once again nobs hids an absurd source behind more credible but of course fake ones. Bullit is a well-known American McCarthyite known for terrible conduct (FDR hated him), famous for leveling false accusations against others like Lattimore who turned out to be completely innocent of any crime. He had repeated a story that a French head official had French intel goods on the Hiss brothers. Eduard (the official) and the French Intelligence never confirmed anything Bullit atttested to, and did not make a sign that they were even aware of Bullit's story. Of the "French sources," there is only one source (nobs pluralization is a mystery to me), who is American, and a very shady character. This is very dishonest, but Nobs ignores everything for more of my personal faults as an editor.
• It is my personal opinion that nobs baits people into protracted, absurd debates by consisently being uncooperative, uncompromising, unfair, and unrestrained in using dubious methods, facts, sources, and outright fraud to promulgate POV drek across Wikipedia. Whenever someone complains, nobs and only nobs makes it personal and twists everything into some "personal attack," when it is obvious that the complaints stem from his horrendous behavior and methods, rather than some racial slur or sexuality remark. I find his behavior abhorrent, his fraudulent work inexcusable, and his complaints wholly without merit. Nobs needs to be kept out of this article if it is to have any chance of being factual and fair.

Rebuttal to Nobs

• Nobs complaint seems to be that I was rude to him, to which I will add that I was painfully patient with him for a long time, until I started seeing total fraud in his work re: Sayre, and an unwillingness to keep anti-Hiss POV in the anti-Hiss section. Nobs refused to give me a straight answer about his "sources," giving me one false reference after another while constantly berating my own methods. This breed justifiable resentment when I found out his reference was impossible and completely false. It is difficult to be civil when a user has deceived you and refused to honestly engage your questions, instead insulting your own methods and parroting strawman retorts.
• I have not deleted nobs footnotes, that is a complete and utter lie. Nobs has convieniently provided my reverts, which happen to have the Vassiliev quote citation at the bottom under the "Notes" header. See: 14⇧ Secrets, Lies, and Atomic, PBS NOVA Transcript, 5 February 2002. "The Rosenbergs, Theodore Hall and Alger Hiss did spy for the Soviets, and I saw their real names in the documents, their code names, a lot of documents about that. How you judge them is up to you. To me they're heros I deleted the quote, but not the citation at the bottom, because I had hoped Nobs would have found a PROPER use for the quote in the anti-Hiss section in the future. He does not seem however interested in obeying the format, and continued to post POV drek in a totally inappropriate section, which I repeatedly deleted. I have also kept the HUAC committee citation without the offending sentence, though I have substantial reason to believe that it is private, unknown, and deliberately used as a fraudulent source in lieu of Douglass Reed, which states those very facts about the closed HUAC record.
• I have deleted the Sayre sentence because I had conclusively proven it was false and Nobs was not citing any sources that backed him up. Nobs had sent my on a wild goosehunt trying to find a nonexistent transcipt of a private and sealed record, only to have it traced back the apparent real source in a Douglass Reed work, which also contradicted half of his assertions (and was insanely unworthy of citation as a reliable source for its anti-Zionist ravings).
• I will now be able to add sockpuppet, troll, and conspiracist to the smears against me from Nobs.

I will of course point out that Nobs has no grounds for these accusations. I was not even aware that there was already an arbitration case against him until I looked at his user page discussion to bring up the Sayre filth. I can only see desperation as the justification for these new slurs. I was the one who implemented the new format in hopes of restoring NPOV and balance, while Nobs has trolled me by using false citations and inserting dubious information and inflammatory POV quotes in sections designed to show the facts DEFENDING Hiss, or to be neutral. He has refused to give me straight answers about his work, and instead insists on pushing the article to a widely POV staunce against Alger Hiss through underhanded tactics.

• The third party rewrite concerned the work of Blindjustice, not me. Another complete lie. [361]
• General V has never "recanted" his assertions; one can plainly see that no conservative pundit dares quote this supposed recantation without heavy use of ellipses and small, out-of-context quoting. General V and his team of archivists worked together to ascertain Hiss's possible involvment with Soviet intel. Please note that nobs has repeatedly deleted this information about General V wholesale in the past, and has asserted that General V's search took 2 days when National Review of all people says 5 weeks at least [362]. The article is highly critical of Hiss, but is not as thick as nobs wild speculation.