User talk:RobSmith/Archive 01

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, RobSmith! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Welcome to the clammy hero. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless this is the RobSmith we've come to know and ridicule, you may have to get a name change--I believe we have some RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Renaming_userssort of policy on user names that get to close to the names/i.d's of established users...TheoryOfPractice 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are RobS? Why the new handle? TheoryOfPractice 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's me. Lost my password (or some commie bastard stole it). RobSmith 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take you at your word, comrade, and sysop you. All power to the soviets!!!! TheoryOfPractice 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, you can just ask User:Nx to reset your password, and he'll do it. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Click raw signatures

-- =w= 01:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And vote for Mei.

Welcome to MeiWiki, RobSmith. Please see this political leaflet and this badge of support, which you should adopt as soon as possible. Vote for Mei.

-- =w= 01:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, Signor. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Senorita. -- =w= 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Awards

You do indeed, as suspected and observed, have a sense of humeur. (I am human, on sabbatical) In absentia 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

When Ronaldus Magnus was asked, "Isn't there enough blame to go around?" he responded, "Well, yes. i used to be a Democrat."

Hey, Human, as a well known defender of the sacred provisions guarding separtaion of church and state, [2] care to collaborate in exposing Bill Clinton's attempt to sieze our Constitutional liberties and force our children in public schools to participate in school prayer? Look at this reversion, [3] it was poperly cited to the Washington Compost, you know, the mainstream rag that destroyed Richard Nixon and exposed Ollie North. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that really you Rob? 04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep'n it is. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read

Mao - the Unknown Story. Very, very good biography of the man. You'd enjoy it. --PsygremlinPrata! 18:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm busy at work developing a subsection for CP's Obama article right now entitled, "Maoism". RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put a heading at the top marked "Smears" and not bother with the rest. Seems that would cover the whole article. --Kels (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a draft opening: "A deep strain of Maoist thought has pervaded Barack Obama's influences throughout his life." One problem I'm wrestling with is, during the Sino-Soviet split, cp:Frank Marshall Davis was acredited with remaining the sole true Stalinist voice on the Honolulu Record, while cp:Koji Ariyoshi and the rest were reprimanded as Maoist deviationists. But Obama's later contacts, Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones, Anita Dunn, et al, all opening embraced Maoism. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You done need do moar researchs. You haz no cluu wha youz is talking about. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Prof. Ayers and Prof. Dohrn were more New Left, heterodox types than orthodox Maoists. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For openers, we have the cp:PFOC, inspired by Chairman Mao. Jeff Jones was a co-author/organizer. Through Jeff Jones we have another Obama connection -- cp:Van Jones. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama and Mao share more than 99% of the same DNA, HOW CAN THAT BE A COINCIDENCE!?!?!?!? --Kels (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good porn

Hey man, I liked that porn site you enjoy. Can you tell me of some others? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a fucking liar!

I'd say this over at CP, but would probably get banned for it. Anyway, this is a total lie, and I'm calling you on it here and now.

Where exactly on "Rate My Professor" do the kids speculate about their prof's political views? I checked your link and saw nothing anywhere calling her a "socialist." Not even among the comments, among gems like "she's too hard and doesn't tell us what's on the test!"

Just admit it, you pulled this directly out of your ass, didn't you? Junggai (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I was a bit hard on you. After re-reading, it seems one student said so in a comment, where you can also read about her "She always dresses nice. She should stop trying to straighten her hair and go natural!" Even if this site were a valid enough resource to put her in the "socialist" category, you're still a fucking liar by using the plural. If you have any integrity, you'll change it to "one student." Junggai (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so she's a beougious socialist with a nifty hairdo. Is that better? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

you're weird, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

I have a history question or two for you, Rob: First, what do you think of the New Left? Do you see it as connected to communism/socialism? And what about the Democratic Party today? Any connection there? Just curious. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Professor Isaac Deutscher rehabed communism in the 1950-60s by resurrecting Trotskyism and "not throwing the Marxist baby out with the Stalinst bathwater." Hence the children of Old Left Stalinists became New Left Trotskyites. A certain segment of these, victims of crimes perpetuated by Great Society spending programs ("mugged by reality") spun off to become the neo-conservative movement.

The major difference between Democrat and Republican is, the Democrats have never purged themselves of the subversive "blame America crowd." Ann Coulter was wrong when she stated in Treason, "McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover;" [4] with the appointment of a Maoist as White House Communications Director for example, domestic communism has staged an impressive comeback. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardy Har

Oh, you're so witty. If only you weren't a fucking hypocrite at the same time. In other words, now you're acting like that evil witchdoctor Obama by engaging in discussion without actually changing your position. Wait a second!!! Are you a secret Communist Fascist Muslim too? Junggai (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, is this a Godwinism? [5] Dr. Mengele can go straight back to hell along with this healthcare bill. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I think Godwin's Law applies to internet discussions, not crazy-ass blog postings. But in spirit, yes, comparing Obama's healthcare reform to a man who made human lampshades matches the insanity and dumb, cheap fear-mongering that Godwin represents. Junggai (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is govenrment funding, and government control. Mengele worked under the direction of a central command and control, government funded project (believe it or not, designed to reduce unemployment among other things). Right-wing conservatives, then and now, oppose these socialist and statists schemes on principal. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm absolutely convinced that right-wing conservatives are shouting "Nazi!" in order to constructively state their position on fiscal conservatism with such nuance as you just described. Those darned liberals just can't take a sound historical comparison with good humor, can they? If only they could be good sports and accept being compared to mass-murderers, mutual respect and understanding would surely replace the current gridlock and petty name-calling that dominate political life in Washington.

Or did you actually believe the bullshit that you just typed? Junggai (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct says, . Accusations of fascism or comparisons to Hitler are also best avoided, yet we have Conservapedia:Fascism, and Essay:Conservapedia and Fascism, the latter written by the same author identified by name at wp:Conservapedia#Peter_Lipson. Do we have another instance of cp:Liberal deciet? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, so we come full circle then. You're admitting that acting like a hypocrite is okay, because there are people of different political persuasions who also act like hypocrites. (At least that's what I could gather from the above word-salad.) If that's really how you feel, then invoke Hitler all you want, and by the "I'm rubber, you're glue" rule, you might even be making a valid point.

But let's get back to Obama and Mengele, shall we? Do you really believe that conservatives invoke Nazi doctors in their rhetoric to illustrate a nuanced historical point about "government funding and control"? Or are you just blowing smoke over turds to hide the identity of the ones who're laying them? Junggai (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mengele worked for a social/political system with govenrment funded and controlled healthcare. See cp:Hitler#Health_care_in_Nazi_Germany.

Remember the Golden Rule, He whose got the gold makes the rules. When the gubmint gots the gold, the gubmint makes the rules doctors who get paid by gubmint follow.

I oppose gubmint control of healthcare. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And when the Republicans get the gubmint, well, nothing to see here, comrades! --Kels (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulltwinkies. You got the Prescription Drug Benefit and another couple a trillion added to the debt. [6] GOPers can spend with the best of them and be just as irresponsible. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a funny guy, Rob. Don't ever change, or take your medications as directed. --Kels (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernardine Dohrn

Hi Rob, I'm directing this to you since you have a morbid fascination for leftists you can call terrorists and you've been editing this article the most, although it still more or less resembles the source TK lifted it from without attribution in December 2008. I guess that would explain why it's still thin on citations, right? Anyway, there are a few things I'm curious about that perhaps you'd be so good as to source. The article repeatedly refers to Dohrn as a disbarred attorney. What's the source for this? What state? I'll look it up for you if you know. I realize it's tough to source stuff that someone else wrote. Also, footnote 4 doesn't remotely support the claim that she's suspected of committing a murder in San Francisco. I'm pretty sure Conservapedia doesn't care about repeating defamatory statements against people Andy and his pals dislike, but you might as well source them if you can because Conservapedia is the trusworth encyclopedia. Look forward to hearing from you. 14:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Will look into these. Shooting from the hip, she pleaded (or pled) guilty to bail jumping, was convicted, so can't hold a law licence in any state, AFAIK. The FBI informer, Larry Gratwohl, published a book in 1976 that says Ayers told him Bernardine planted the bomb. No one's ever discredited Gratwohl's sworn testimony before Congressional Committees. only recently did the SF cop union ask to reopen a cold case investigation, and rumors are they may be some physical evidence available thatg could not be processed back than. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, conviction of most crimes isn't grounds for disbarment. Only crimes involving dishonest or a person's integrity. I don't think bail jumping counts, but since I don't know what state she was barred up in initially I can't check. She apparently was never an Illinois lawyer, as the records go back before Lincoln and don't get purged merely because someone is convicted of a crime (viz. Ed Vrdolyak). What state was she barred in? You should source the bombing statement in that article if you've got one. 23:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:Bernardine_Dohrn#Later_life_and_career says, "was turned down by the Illinois ethics committee because of her criminal record," but of curse, I don't know how good a source WP is. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd slap a fact tag on that one only because unless she or someone with personal knowledge said so, there aren't going to be public records of her application to the Illinois bar being rejected, which is what I take you to be saying. 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what the common meaning or understanding of thbe word disbarment means. If we were to take WP's editors statement, there was a formal process and rendering of judgement that barred her from the practice of law, no? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In Other News

You finally learned how to spell "bourgeois." I'm proud of you, man. Junggai (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

ty. I'm finally part of the educated classes. Highbrow. Upper crust. Ivory tower. The intellegensia. No mas stoopitsheet por mi. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just don't start exhibiting professor values, or I'm afraid we'll have to convince TK to block you for "inserting liberal multiculturalism into articles." Junggai (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was all part of Rob's cunning plan to become CP's professor in situ, now that Rob & TK have succeeded in effectively driving off RJJensen, and with it the last shred of credibility CP had. --PsygremlinSiarad! 13:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cartoons

Please have a whisper in Brian's ear and ask him to reinstate the weekly toon. We had so much fun with them and I, for one, kinda miss them. I'm not sure why he stopped, it seems Terry hasn't released that Blues Room discussion to the public yet - we're still hovering around December at the moment. --Psygremlin講話 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ken... I mean Rob.

Just a hint, but when you post, how about using the preview button. And you make a gazillion changes al a Ken, how about using the minor edit button. Just think of all the poor electrons that are being scrambled unnecessarily, due to your thoughtless actions. --PsygremlinSnakk! 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

This was out-of-date before you posted it. If you read my response (and-a-half), neither am I young, nor have I avoided giving you a "rational" answer. I bothered to answer your question (in tedious detail), now bother to answer mine. And I ask you one thing, who would "tuck away a memento" of their own vandalism and then show up as a different user bragging about the vandalism?

By the way, that law you posted was hilarious. More nanny-statism by that liberal George Bush. Junggai (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was Arlen Specter, the GOPer who jumped shipped to the Democrats to provide a filibuster proof Senate, who wrote that law. And hey, Specter's back in the news today. [7] Better hope the opposition doesn't take back Congress, cause then (like Nixon & Watergate, Reagan & Iran/Contra or Clinton/Lewinsky) we know how an immobilized president will serve out the remainder of his term under investigation. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice Work!

I just discovered your Liberal Hate Speech article over at CP, but your work is somewhat incomplete. When are you going to start a Conservative Hate Speech article?--WJThomas (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you an urgent email!

...or a talk page message rather, under the erroneous belief that you were still editing as User:RobS. It's over here. DickTurpis (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to WP/Wales/Brandt/Berlet and all that

[Moved from other pages. Thanks Dick, I beleive this discussion is useful. Below your latest comment is my last posting I wished for you to review. At a minimum, please review BADSITES link, in its context, at a minimum. Thanks again. RobSmith]
I'm back from my trip and, being a bit of a masochist, I thought I'd have one final go at the earlier thread (now archived). I didn't look at many of the links you provided because frankly I don't see the point, and it doesn't seem worth my time. The original question put to you was pretty simple: how are the way WP and CP run in any way similar? You've as much as admitted they are not. Maybe someday, if I feel like wading through hundreds of WP pages, I'll look at the Berlet/Brandt issue some more, but I wouldn't count on it. The main issue of our discussion seemed to center on Jimbo's statement saying Brandt is not a reliable source. I read that and see a basic, factual statement (one even Brandt, if he is the private individual he claims to be, would agree with, it would seem). You read that and see it as a fatwa, or some sort of call to arms that WP editors have to fuck Brandt and fuck him so hard he never makes a peep again. I don't see it. Like all conspiracy theorists I've encountered, you're very good at projecting between the lines. Of course, I haven't seen the context in which Jimbo was speaking. Maybe that changes everything, but somehow I doubt it. DickTurpis (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at wp:Roots_of_anti-Semitism, it redirects to "Anti-semitism." All the material was either merged or deleted redirected. The only two sources were Karl Marx, and Chip Berlet. [8] After an extensive discussion on that talk page, wp:Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What counts as reputable? the concenesus among high level sysops was Merge & redirect. [9] Rangerdude proved Berlet was not a reputable source about anything other than himself. The problem was WP, in combating the LaRouche editors, and Jayjg to support his West Bank articles, and SlimVirgin in a myriad of disputes, all heavily relied on Berlet. Berlet's critics needed to be silenced as "marginal, fringe and extreme," so Daniel Brandt was attacked. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I: Much of this material was rehashed in the BADSITES case. We finally got a larger segment of the WP community to review that discussion at Talk/Roots of Anti-semitism and see the fraud. It was not long after that Berlet quit, SV & Jayjg were disciplined. Will Beback (User:Willmcw) also has had problems, I understand. But I'm now an editor in good standing, despite the fact SV said the BADSITES policy only targeted 5 websites: me, Brandt, Bagley, Michealmoore.com WikipediaReview (where me, Brandt, and Bagley talk) and Encyclopedia Dramatica. [10] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum II: The best representative sample of response from the WP community over the Essjay scandal can be found here, wp:User talk:Essjay/There's a special circle of Hell reserved for duplicitous sacks of shit like you. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw this when you posted it before, and it still doesn't really address anything I'm interested in. I looked at the badsites page, but without researching the background more it isn't easy to follow everything. I notice your website is the only one not mentioned by name. Might I ask what it is and if it still exists? I guess those were singled out by SlimVirgin as being the only one's she knew of that targeted specific WP sysops, is that basically true? (I know at least Brandt's site had some sort of wall of shame, which profiled certain sysops and gave as much personal information about them as he could find.) And was the verboten status those 5 websites a policy or just a proposal by SV?

The other stuff I'm just not interested in. You still haven't addressed my question about Jimbo's statement on Brandt. How is saying he is not a reliable source a personal attack, let alone a call to arms against him?

The Essjay saga I'm a bit more familiar with, and I think I can say pretty safely that you've blown the whole thing way out of proportion. Many people were mad at him for lying about who he was (and there were quite a few who defended him too) and in the end he was removed from his positions of authority and then retired from Wikipedia. He hasn't edited under that name since. Ironically, I seem to recall no one had issues with his edits themselves, before or after his true identity was revealed (to any large extent; you can always find some controversy with any editor). I believe his edits were by and large accurate and well sourced. He wasn't the expert he claimed to be, he was simply the best of the public. The controversy he created got some brief publicity, and angered some people, but did not lead to a mass exodus of quality WP editors. DickTurpis (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link. It is not my site. [11] SV thought it was, and we mediated it privately (w/MONGO as mediator). I have no intention or desire to out SV as the person identified there, and it will be noted cp:Wikipedia does not, nor ever has. And it was written before our private mediation. But this link provided does fill in much of the problems Brandt had w/WP which WP earnestly tried to prevent becoming public. Brandt woke up one day and discovered he was slandered in WP but didn't know why; my role was providing to Brandt the motive why, extensively repeated in CP's WP entry with all the diffs.

The BADSITES proposal failed. WP seriously frowns on "outing" true life identities of contributors, irregardless of content or issues. This is marked reversal of what WP claimed in the Siegenthaler incident, when an anonymous troll slandered someone and put WP on the map. Siegenthaler demanded accountability and catapulted WP from number 56 on Alexa to number 8. They pretended for awhile they were gonna become transparent & accountable, but slandering people made them famous. So you go with what works.

Slim named those 5 because 4, she beleived were trying to out her (she mistakenly accused me because my public conversations with Brandt at WR). The fifth was Encyclopedia Dramatica, already blacklisted in the MONGO arbcom case.

As to Jimbo & Brandt, the timeline worked like this: SV, me, Rangerdude & Berlet were in serious dispute on several pages over several issues. Rangerdude & me were subjected to serious sockpuppet, stalking, harassment and trolling cause Berlet, SV (and Will Beback) could not defeat us on the merits in content disputes. In the midst of one such dispute over "What is a credible source," Brandt was introduced. SV immediately created the Brandt bio. Berlet, allegedly a WP credible source per policies written by Slim, was used to call Brandt a fascist holocaust denier.

Brandt did not have clue what or why this was happening, and at first tried to moderate the content. But WP needed to protect Berlet because he was cited extensively to refute LaRouche editors. Brandt contacted Wales to get the entry changed or deleted and got no where. The Siegenthaler incident erupted simultaneously and Brandt ID the perp quickly. This all catapulted WP into the headlines and an interview with Editor & Pulbisher. When the magazine asked about Brandt (there was no BLP at the time), Wales parroted the party line, "I don't consider Brandt a credible source about anything at all." This was in the midst of both my & Rangerdude's arbitration (Rangerdude actually suffered through two cases, his own and named a co-defendent in mine), where a key point of contention between me, RD, SV, Berlet, and Will Beback was, What is a reputable source, Brandt or Berlet?" The policies Slim wrote said, "an extremist source can never be cited for anything other than itself." So which extemist source can be used to criticize the other, Brandt's criticism of Berlet, or Berlet's criticism of Brandt. Jimbo ruled in favor of Berlet and condemned Brandt as "not a valid critic of anything at all." Case closed. Me & RD lost. Berlet, SV, & Will Beback, with all thier policy violations and COIs, won. We got banned, and they got the go ahead to engage in the most outrageous conduct against others with no repercussions, slandering at will. Eventually it became too much and they had to be reigned in.

Essjay grew out of the Brandt dispute, and is closely related to BADSITES, i.e. "outing" CP editors. Brandt felt put upon because once Wales declared him persona non grata, together with all the suckup Admins willing to assist the Berlet/SlimVirgin/Will Beback jihad against dissenting views, was being slandered and attacked by literally hundreds in the WP Admin community, on site & offsite. Brandt fought back, started taking names and doing what he proved he could do in the Siegenthaler incident, ID abusers and hold people responsible. Brandt early on suspected Essjay was one such fraud and abuser, and after about 8 months, proved it was true. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 06:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a first. You've managed to write several paragraphs of largely coherent material, basically staying on topic (and without once mentioning communism). I almost don't know how to react.

Some of this I was familiar with from back when this was going on and I peeked into it a bit. This is probably the first time I read a general summary of Brandt's side of the controversy. Missing is details of and links to SlimVirgin's abuse, but, really, I don't care enough to delve into that. I'd wager allegations against her are not entirely without foundation, but also I have to keep in mind I'm getting just one side of a controversy here.

Now, what I do have to balk at is that you seem to be creating a false dichotomy: either Brandt or Berlet was a reliable source in the eyes of WP and/or Jimbo. By Jimbo saying Brandt wasn't, he was saying Berlet was. I don't see how that follows. Usually the way these things at WP are handled are someone will point out "hey, this article relies a lot on citing some guy named Berlet. Is he a reliable source?" They'll be a discussion and eventually it will be taken somewhere for debate by the community, who may or may not reach a consensus on this. Maybe arbcom will get involved. Did that happen here? Was there a centralized discussion of Berlet as a reliable source? I'm sort of curious to see the arguments on both sides, though it is sort of water over the dam and this point.

Also, I think saying the Essjay controversy grew out of the Brandt dispute is a bit misleading, from what I recall about it. It seems to me Brandt's role was drawing attention to something Essjay had revealed himself when he got a job at Wikia (or whatever his new position was to be), that he was not who he had claimed to be. This might not have been a big deal at all, as at WP it doesn't matter who you are, it matters what you write (banned users being the exception), but he had claimed to be a professor in a field he worked extensively on. This proved quite controversial in a way that would not have been the case if his chosen persona had been a plumber or a real estate agent. So he retired. It is, of course entirely possible, maybe even likely, that he edits from a new account there, as a wikiaddiction of his caliber would probably be hard to quit cold turkey, but that doesn't matter. He was never banned, he editing itself seemed legit, and if he wants to start over he's free to. It would just behoove him not to claim expertise in a field he edits when he doesn't have any. DickTurpis (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Usually the way these things at WP are handled are someone will point out "hey, this article relies a lot on citing some guy named Berlet. Is he a reliable source?"

The link above that Slim mistakenly accused me of writing says,

"In late 2004, Chip entered the fray.

"He soon found an ally in "SlimVirgin", an editor that joined shortly after Chip in late 2004. Their politics were similar, and SlimVirgin quickly learned that the way to win debates at Wikipedia is not by presenting a reasoned argument, but by "gaming the system": one must familiarize oneself with the rules, loudly accuse one's opponent of violating them, and then get the opponent banned -- problem solved. SlimVirgin was so successful at playing this game that she quickly became an administrator or "admin," giving her the power to ban political opponents herself.

"Meanwhile, Chip also had something to offer to this symbiotic relationship. Wikipedia rules require that all opinions inserted into the articles must come from a previously published source. Voilà! Chip can write anything he likes, post it at the website of Political Research Associates, and it has been published! Suddenly Chip's writings were in demand, if not in the real world, at least in the nerd-obsessive battleground of Wikipedia."

The BADSITES link rehashes a discussion from WP:Roots of Anti-Semitism#What is a reliable source? Extracted:

SlimVirgin told ArbCom,

"'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party" [17]

The complainant [Rangerdude] in that case stated,

"Slim - Nothing you've quoted from NOR contradicts what I've quoted from WP:RS. In fact the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations? [18]

Game, Set, Match, Rangerdude. Brandt then had to be destroyed as an "extremist" so he could not be used as "a source for anything other than himself." That's when Jimbo entered the fray, off wiki, in a reputable, reliable, verifiable, mainstream trade publication, (so as to avoid COI, which wasn't official policy then, nor UNDUE). And Jimbo's denying Brandt as an "expert on anything at all" supported Berlet, SV, Will Beback, Jayjg, and El_C's position.

Brandt first started the "Who is Essjay" thread in WikipediaReview in June 2006. Last I looked a few years ago, was WR most popular thread with 19,000 views. It probably still remains #1. The Essjay scandal became public in Feb- March 2007, the time you first heard about it. If you want good insights to what going on behind the scenes in the cabal, use WR. He's a link to thier site [12] Their bureacracy forum is always good scuttlebutt. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC l

Now we're starting to get back to the old Rob. Not quite there yet, but a step in the right direction. Again, the element you seem to cling to, which I have trouble accepting, is that Jimbo's statement about Brandt was anything other than a simple statement of fact. Brandt, like all private individuals, is not a Reliable Source. Just as neither you or I are. I simply do not see how this statement endorsed Berlet in any way other than that Berlet would agree with it. If Jimbo had said water is wet Berlet would agree with that too, that doesn't make such a statement an endorsement of Berlet.

Furthermore, though I don't care to delve into it much, I'm don't necessarily see how denying a the SWP website as a reliable source automatically condemns anyone with any connection to that group as unreliable. Likewise, other than some blanket statements about SlimVirgin abusing powers and getting eberyone who disagreed with her banned, I see no evidence of this happening (though I don't deny there is quite possibly some truth to that).

I remember reading Brandt's "Who is Essjay" column after the Essjay story broke. The thing is, he was never able to find out until Essjay came forward admitting he was Ryan Jordan. Brandt hardly cracked it wide open. DickTurpis (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

All of this is covered in cp:Wikipedia. You really need to see a timeline of events to see it all, something someone may wish to do someday. But is roughly something like this:

• August 2005 - Disputes at cp:Chip Berlet, wp:Talk:Roots of Anti-Semitism, and dozens of other pages involving Berlet, SlimVirgin, Will Beback, Rangerdude, and Nobs01 (me).
• September 2005 - Arbitration between SlimVirgin, Will Beback and Rangerdude begins; major point of contention, is Daniel Brandt a reliable source of criticism for Chip Berlet.
• October 2005 - SlimVirgin creates Brandt bio; Berlet self-published source claims Brandt works with the infamous holocaust denial group, the ihr.
• November 2005 - Berlet mediation with Nobs01 breaks down; Nobs01 introduces "the foremost expert in extremism in America," according to the Military Law Review, a peer reviewed, scholarly, government publication, as a source to document Chip Berlet's ties to extremist organizations and refute attacks on Brandt by SlimVirgin and Berlet.
• November 2005 - Arbitration commences against Nobs01, Rangerdude, et al, initiated by Berlet over whether or not Chip Berlet is a "reputable source for anything other than himself."
• November 2005 - Sienthaler incident erupts catapulting WP to top ten Alexa. Brandt, already in dispute with WP over anonymous editors inserting slander, ID's Siegnthaler perp. Perp may face prosecution.
• December 2005 - Jimbo declares in an outside WP:RS, WP:V source, Brandt is not a credible source for "anything at all;" Jimbo's comments immediately inserted into Brandt bio cited to outside source. Berlet self-published accusations remain.
• December 2005 - Brandt blocked, Nobs01 & Rangerdude banned.
• Early 2006 - Brandt begins ID of anon admins writing his WP bio.
• c.May 2006 - Brandt ID's anon admin (who was involved in the Rangerdude case) as a Congressional Quarterly correspondent with US Senate press credentials and an undisclosed COI as a WP ADMIN to her employers. The Admin loses her Senate press credentials. Shocks ripple threw WP Admin community for fear of losing thier real life jobs if Brandt's proven ability to ID anonymous users is successful again.
• June 2006 - Brandt publicly sets sites on Essjay at WR forum.
• Feb 2007 - Essjay exposed at WR forum.
• Summer 2008 - BADSITES proposed to protect WP users from outsiders attempting to ID them. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 20:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, the one thing you have been unable to do, and the one thing this thread seems to have been trying to establish, is to point to one statement in which Jimbo supports Berlet. So far, you've only shown him (mildly) condemning Brandt. That is not the same thing. DickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if linking the timeline closer helps.

• September 28 2005 [13] - SlimVirgin creates Brandt bio. (SV gave me this date in private mediation; the original has been oversighted).

• Mid October 2005 - Brandt cooperation with WP editors breaks down. Brandt writes, "When I was working with SlimVirgin in good faith in October 2005, I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier. By the middle of October 2005, I was beginning to realize that this wasn't a fair fight..... I soon realized that it was also about Berlet..." [14] [Comment: mid October is corroborated by SV. This link to WikipediaReview is significant at several levels. For one, Brandt discusses Berlet's attempts to "undermine" Brandt in WP. This is exactly the same language Berlet hoped to keep out of Berlet's WP bio, a quote of Brandt about a dispute sixteen years earlier. The quote reads, "Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.'"

• November 14 2010 - Definition and meaning of the phrase "an extreme source can never be used as a source for anything in Wikipedia other than itself" litigated. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seigenthaler rebuttal appears in USAToday [15]

• December 5 2005 - Wales comments to E&P.

I slapped this together quickly. It could be more deatiled. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 00:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm basically done with this discussion. You're trying to make one statement by Jimbo into a sinister plot that runs deep throughout Wikiepdia. Ain't buying it. You also seem to like to tie everything into Brandt and Berlet. I guess BLP qualifies, to an extent (though it was Seigerthaler that really got that one rolling). Brandt's sole role in the Siegenthaler incident was tracking down the guy who wrote the libelous article; the incident itself was unconnected. Essjay was a separate incidnt as well (though I guess Brandt had him in his sights for a while before that). I would hardly consider a failed proposal like Badsites a milestone of anything.

One quesiton though, do Wikiepdia articles still cite Berlet's website as a reliabel source, or have those links been removed? DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first diff on wp:WP:BLP, the edit summary is Because of the Daniel Brandt situation. Brandt was tracking down several anonymous editors adding content to his bio at that time and he piggybacked on the negative publicity Siegenthaler generated in the USAToday Op-ed. Brandt's point was WP was unconcerned about anonymous trolls, but they could be easily identified.

At the time, AGF was policy, not guideline. Per policy, I accepted my one year ban, did not sockpuppet, and remained silent. When I returned the second year and was re-banned after filing an Appeal to revisit the case, I broke silence and approached Brandt in WR. A week after presenting evidence and diffs to Brandt, the Jimbo slam at Brandt was excised from the Brandt bio. It had been in for 14 months. It was a WR moderator, Somey, who followed up Ryan Jordan outing himself at Wikia and reported to Brandt. That's when the scandal broke.

Badsites was embalming a blacklist into policy. But the issue of outing still takes precedence over many other concerns. See wp:Wikipedia:DR#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues.

As to Berlet, he's probably still a major source to refute LaRouchism, and his self cited WP:OR Dominionism screeds probably still exist. His hit pieces on Dr. Lenora Fullani, the first Black, the first woman, and the first Black woman to achieve ballot status in 50 states for president may still exist. WP cited Berlet calling her a terrorist. Dr. Fullani's attempts to moderate slander of this historic figure (I'm fairly certain she was User:BabyDwezil) got her banned. The circumstances of Berlet voluntarily leaving I'm unsure of, last I saw he was claiming the privacy rights afforded to Brandt in asking his bio be deleted. This has not happened yet. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 19:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

I find it interesting that you repeatedly cite CP's Wikipedia article, which is pretty damn lousy. The citing in that article is piss poor. For instance, to back up the spurious claim that many or most quality editors quit WP after the Essjay scandal, you cite a blog by a professor explaining that he quite for entirely different reasons (no mention of Essjay at all). In fact, the scandal merely drives home the point about why editors can't get on WP and say "I'm a professor so you have to listen to me about this!" which seemed to be the author's main gripe. You also don't even try to back up the claim that Berlet was given blanket exemption from every Wikipedia policy. I also love how the article takes a hyperbolic joke made by the register and stakes it as a fact in the opening sentence. But it's Conservapedia, so I can hardly expect anything remotely resembling a quality article. DickTurpis (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I'm in the process of reviewing. I appreciate very much your input, and will take that criticism in improving the article.

The article is largley constructed from evidence presented in my own ArbCom case which was ignored, and exists in WP already in one form or another. So if WP:DR was abused in my case, much of it finally gets a hearing in CP and has been endoresed by several non-CP editors intimately familiar with the background and details as largely authentic.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is cited in both WP & CP about the reaction among academics, in fact, WP piles on more cites. As to individual "experts" (a subject closely related to CP's article, the Stacy Schiff article was entitled, Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise, Wales said "I don't consider Brandt an expert"; and WP's policies were rewritten without concensus in real time to remove "experts do not occupy a position of privelege" during my dispute with Berlet;) flight from WP after the Essjay case blew open, perhaps could be improved. None of this should be disputed now. I'll concede WP is improved from back then, and much the outcome of these cases. But as to corruption of internal regulatory processes, we'll find out in due time if that remains so. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 19:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A reminder

File:Show preview.png

-- Nx / talk 17:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite. Is there a significance to this? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in the grand scheme of things. Please try to use show preview more often. Thanks. -- Nx / talk 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you can reset passwords. No wonder I never contacted you. Thanks. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? -- Nx / talk 18:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or the processes involved. Or why I had trouible accessing my account. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I locked you out of your previous account, User:RobS? -- Nx / talk 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have an email address associated with your old account. I used the email new password button on the login screen, so you should get a new password. It'll probably be in your spam folder. Have a nice day. -- Nx / talk 18:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, not the content of the screen in the pic was important (it's just what's on your talk page). Follow the red arrow! It's just a reminder to use the Show preview button extensively. Ken never learned how to do it, maybe you can! Otherwise there is this pollution of Special:RecentChanges... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. I never even read the text. -- Nx / talk 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you did ask me to reset your password. I told you to use the email new password function then, but you didn't reply. -- Nx / talk 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Show Preview, much as I'd like to, and as much as I try, because of the incessant trolling of some disruptive RW editors, I can't. Same is true with the minor edit box. If you can get a handle on these trolls who keep disprupting our attempts at dialougue, I'd be delighted to be more careful. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think RobS gave his password to TK. Or at least, his fealty. ħuman 04:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How are trolls keeping you from pressing the preview button? Junggai (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because they are communists. Corry (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Vatican/the Catholics on front page of CP...(Cross posted from your RobC page)

So, is there any chance that as a CP sysop you can get a front page story about the Catholic Church that has less to do with holy relics and more to do with the systematic way that the Church protects people who fuck little boys? Thanks.TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. If you're asking me personally, I'm less interested in it for its jouirnalistic sensationalism and more as a member of WP:Project Wisconsin. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 21:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that, but Ireland and Germany aren't in Wisconsin. I just want to see Andy twist himself into a corkscrew-like-shape trying to No True Scotsman his way out of the fact that the Church has two serious problems: a bunch of pedophiles and a bunch of officials, possibly including the highest official, who have systematically turned a blind eye to the pedophiles. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you just trying every CP Admin on RW, TOP? In the past couple of years I have added at least two stories about the Church's failures with the molestation issues. The current article you are talking about clearly shows the Pope's assistant knew the issue was brushed aside. It is quite a jump, considering the workload of his former office, to say the Pope knew about it, or was ever directly told. That said, it disgusts me how most everything about the buggering Priests was handled. And I am Catholic. And I know it disgusted Andy as well. Since exposed, I think most Church officials are, at least now, dealing properly with the problem. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is quite a jump, considering the workload of his former office, to say the Pope knew about it, or was ever directly told." Reminds me of someone else who was blamed for a pilot flying too low. His name eludes me though. Black guy. Lives in a white house. Fairly important job. EddyP (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, TK, CP has done a masterful job of dealing with this unpleasantness. Shall we compare what Conservapedia has to say on the topic with the depth of coverage that other online encyclopedias have given to the topic? (I could go on--that's about a tenth of them....). TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We have the same problem of public school teachers accused of sexual abuse in my state being shifted from one public school district to another and thier licenses remaining intact. [16] Now why should CP single out the Catholic church to pile on more rampant anti-Catholic bigotry? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So your argument isn't about wanting a certain newspaper article placed into CP's news section, but about how you don't think we have "covered" it enough with full-blown articles? Do you want to edit CP and add a fair and balanced (as opposed to being judge and jury and saying the Pope "did it") section to our much, much smaller encyclopedia? Because those cites are from articles, not our little news section. Isn't it disingenuous to compare apples and oranges like that? So your comparison is bullshit, Wikipedia is 1000 times larger. Anyway, the offer stands, or you can write what you think is appropriate, send it to me, and I will add it to our article on the heinous sex abuse cases if within our guidelines. I am happy to more than meet you half way on this, but what you asked of me, and later here of Rob, confused me, cause it seemed to be wanting something placed into Main Page News, not changes to our article. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning re spamming & harassment

Rob, please stop stirring up trouble at this site. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content issues, do so at Wikipedia, on the proper pages & through the proper channels. Don't spam the issue across multiple user talk pages here, and stop using WP policies & processes as threats.

Your claims that the WP issue should be discussed offsite, & that an agreement should be made between two or three editors only, are not even remotely supported in Wikipedia policy, & I doubt that you would make these claims at WP. That you will only speak to or acknowledge a few specific editors (regardless of whether they are even interested in the issue) is insulting to anybody else who has an opinion, & I for one resent being implicitly referred a troll.

You have been told repeatedly that RW is not the place to discuss WP content/editor disputes, & you've persisted in doing so. You've probably noticed that editors are already considering blocking you temporarily if you keep this up. This has nothing to do with whatever the issue is at Wikipedia & everything to do with your behaviour here. Take it outside. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to get me permabanned over at Wikipedia. I dare you to find my account over there and get me banned, since most of what I use it for is copyedits. You'll get laughed out of town! The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we're trying to get him off of harassing and threatening people, perhaps further encouragement on this topic should be avoided. --Kels (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Kels, it would do many RW editors good to learn some basic WP policies, proceedures, and processes. Really, my quoting WP policies should be viewed as a good thing, in good faith, and not threatening. Let's be consrtructive about this. Clearly a dispute exists on WP and off. Everyone would serve themselves well to show good faith efforts to resolve these disputes. I've been here and at CP since the beginning. RW editors who've joined recently haven't a clue as to what's involved here. So my actions should be viewed as efforts to help them before they make any more mistakes.

It's upto Trent right now, establish a backchannel, or let's move forward with the next step of wp:WP:DR. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By God, he's right. I've been lurking around this issue all week and I still have no idea what the problem is. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Rob, I believe making it harder for people like you to threaten and harass users is a very constructive effort. Thank you for support in acting against you. And in future, if you have a WP issue, discuss it on WP where it belongs. --Kels (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Clearly a dispute exists on WP and off" only in your mind, and certainly not on this site. Keep WP business on WP, and stop being an ass. Also, did it ever occur to you that being TK's tool is not the most flattering position available? ħuman 09:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pleaswe keep up your incivility and personal attacks. wp:The whole world is watching. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you want them watching your behaviour here lately? Seems you should be looking at this instead. --Kels (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What you need to look at, Kels, is how many edits to mainspace I've done. Look at specifically my contribs to mainspace. Then re-read the initial WP:COI/Noticeboard#Conservapedia request for Admin's intervention (hey Sid, the neutral Admins on the Noticeboard's are not asked to make final decisions). nobs^{don't bother me} 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked for WP:COIN#CP and it didn't seem to be there any more. Do you have a permalink to the last edit to it? ħuman 21:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's archived here. It doesn't really improve with rereading. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Vesel! ħuman 07:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

no, sorry bitch, dead link. Rob, got the goods? ħuman

Sorry Rob, that's worth zero minus a bit. Hey, you should check this out, it's awesome. --Kels (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Human, it's a matter or record for Arbs to decide. Kels, checkout the only to contributions to mainspace [17][18] and read the first few sentences of wp:WP:CIVIL. Again, Arbcom only reviews user conduct and does not get involved in content disputes. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, knobs, you have no case until you have a full set of 57 names of infiltrators into wikipedia. And you can tie them all to International Communism RationalWiki and its international conspiracy to overcome Wikipedia. PS, better to bring up WP issues on WP, as many of us have said. Take the issue home. I note no sysops - or even bots - have edited my talk page lately, so I can't be "very" wrong. Now go home and make your complaints where they belong, where, amusingly enough, no one cares about them except that you are wasting their time. ħuman 08:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Say Rob, what exactly is Arbcom supposed to be deciding>? --Kels (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Niceness

I can haz cuddles?

You seem stressed. Here's a picture of a kitten to cheer you up. Feel better? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob has no time for kitties, unless they're trained anti-parodist kitties. This morning, despite sterling work by the director of counterintelligence RobS, another parodist was discovered to have infiltrated the almost-inner echelons of CP. Rob will be very busy for the next 24 hours interrogating friends and relatives. --EddyP (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's always time for kitty hugs. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a Penguin? Penguins are better than kitties.

Penguins make everything better.

SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And tastier. And simpler, due to being black and white. And coming in 57 varieties. ħuman 06:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Humor

Hysterical. I laughed for almost a full 30 seconds. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP

Your kinda getting your ass handed to you over on WP, an't ya? I thought you were a master at wikifoo. TK is not gonna be happy with your progress so far. And asking him to get involved to help make an illusion of support is gonna cost ya in the end. You should post that full draft of what you claimed you could turn the WP article into, I think the RW folk would enjoy it. Fifth Horseman (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Liar

You are a liar, and any credibility you ever had with me is gone. tmtoulouse 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

tmt, strip out the names of Lipson, Brian Macdonald, et al from the Stephanie Simon article and we can move on. IMHO, ultimaterly, this is what will happen anyway. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to jump in here, but might I ask why you want this? It's fairly obvious that you aren't interested in improving the article, so what do you get out of PAL's name being removed? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

TK wants all names in the article declared off-limits so his can't be used any more. One assumes that he's starting to look at some new group of suckers to manipulate and doesn't want them finding any dirt on him, but who knows. It's telling that he keeps acting as if there's a clear privacy concern already, which is a very TK sort of tactic. --Kels (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know he tried that here, but TK's name isn't even in the WP article. Does he think that anything here is going to change even if he gets his way at WP? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Indeed, Kels. This is a TK joynt, and Rob is just his willing puppet. TK's long-term goal seems to be getting his real name, as mentioned in the LA Times article, dissociated from his hateful CP persona. ħuman 02:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Or he could just start being a decent person on CP and we would write nice things about him. - π 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arcan, who knows what he thinks he can do? ħuman 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I can't believe this, but I was actually overestimating Rob. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom is going to view the privacy rights of TK, tmt, PalMD, Andy Schlafly (who I think may have a user account at WP), et al equally the same. Let's just hope it never gets that far.

Wouldn't be funny if Andy suddenly got active at WP? Shhheesh, none of you guys would last a week without perma bans. It'd never get to Arbcom. No way could WP tolerate that sort of open vile abuse of a fellow Wikipedian. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You want them to remove Andy's name from the WP article? And you think WP would care about off-wiki comments? It just gets better and better. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 03:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Duh, there's a difference between an entry on a notable person and the same notable person being an active wiki user. Cause of NPA, CIVIL, Stalking, Harassment, etc etc etc, you guys wouldn't last long if Andy was an actice WP user. My God, what would you do with your time everyday? you could shout at the walls , but you couldn't put jackshit in WP on your real thoughts. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

English, muthafucka, do you type it? --Kels (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You know whats laughable is the thought that Schlafly would ever bother to leave his fortress again. He tried it, and got his ass handed to him repeatedly, at WP, on the usenet, at various forums. He would run away and hide. Now he has the ability to simply erase consent and declare victory. He would never return to WP. He is a coward, and requires his protective shell. tmtoulouse 05:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Link

This link still doesn't work, and I doubt it will magically repair itself. -- Nx / talk 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Think about this one for a minute wp:Wikipedia:DR#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues,

Non-public details - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link...

But other sections there may apply as well. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the link isn't accessible because it is broken. You need to add /wiki: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?oldid=25 -- Nx / talk 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Nx, you need to think even stupider than that, he is linking to RW 1.0, the diff isn't even in our database. tmtoulouse 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. -- Nx / talk 01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's your user page...

...there's no problem, but if you start trolling WP bidness on other people's pages again, it's double whatever the last block was, which makes 192 hours in my books. P-Foster (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems this page is already being used for open Mediation. Let's everybody keep it civil. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this page will not be used for any kind of Mediation. That belongs on Wikipedia. -- Nx / talk 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he should get the vandal bin, at least he'd learn to use show preview. -- Nx / talk 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just resisting the urge to fix the blatant lie on his user page, but I'd support binning him on the next block if he keeps harassing and threatening editors "proposing off-Wikipedia mediation". --Kels (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Binned

You have been binned because of your recent trolling here with regards to matters at Wikipedia. Once you cease and desist your trolling, you may be removed. You may also appeal this decision to RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse. If and until then, you are limited to 2 edits per hour. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 06:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You not getting enough attention?

Seriously, find a new hobby. - π 05:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now advertising his edit on Wikipedia. --Sid (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, if it's non-public material, then why the hell does he want to compile it on a wiki, publicly, only to send it in email so that it can remain private. And while we're at it, shouldn't the edit be hidden from RW? -- Nx / talk 17:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I went and hid the content (from sysops too), see Special:Log/suppress. If anyone wants to contest my decision, that's fine, but in the meantime I feel it should be hidden just in case. -- Nx / talk 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NX--The diff still shows up when you click on the link @ WP. P-Foster (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're a bureaucrat. -- Nx / talk 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading comprehension fail (part 43)

Hi, Rob. Normally I would post this on TWIGO:CP, but since you're around, I thought I'd go to the source:

Can you quote the relevant bit where the judge criticizes claims of wmd? lol, thanks. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For bonus lulz, can you name any involved government employee appointed during the Obama administration? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Bin

I have removed you from the vandal bin, seeing as how you've stopped bringing WP crap over here. Let's try to keep it that way. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, don't listen to these geeks. They get a real kick out of enforcing policies on the internet. Laugh at them, cry even, but don't let them think they have some 'hold' over you. They are to a man, pathetic. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

^*facepalm* Senator Harrison (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is MarcusCicero unbinned?
Remember: Hi, This is John's brother. I know he has been using this account for a variety of reasons, none of them productive for his troublesome history of mental health problems. For obvious reasons I don't want to go into details about this but suffice to say my mother and father have decided to withdraw his access from the internet for the duration of his most recent treatment process. I apologise on my brothers behalf for any problems he may have caused this website during his period of instability. As you know, his posts have been of a bizarre quality but that is merely a reflection of his real world mental anguishes. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And: 20:48, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Delaware" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Argument from incredulity" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bohemian Grove" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "John F. Kennedy" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lucid dream" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Gerald Ford"
And: My glorious run has ended. This is not a case of 'leaving and never coming back', but more a case of 'burn out'. I created a personality on the internet so radically different from the real life version that I've forgotten even what trolls remorse feels like.. (You can thank Refugee over on RWW for providing the impetus) My highlights on RW: Making loads of people mad, especially Ace, Susan, Jeeves (Hi Jeeves! Wanker) and also Kels. Doing my best to persuade half of you that I 'was a dick who has something worthwhile to say', while really just being a dick and doing my best to annoy as many people as possible. Continuously rejecting the label of troll; even though I was the most transparent 'concern troll' in history. Riding the wave of mock grievance; So many times you put me on the centre stage with a semi reasonable grievance and I made sure to maximise the fallout as much as possible. Pretending to be a scholar (I know fuck all) One regret: Stooping to do the mental illness stunt. That was a terrible miscalculation. Adios RW! I may pop in from time to time, but at least now you'll know for sure than I'm a fully fledged troll! MarcusCicero 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And: On the other hand, the temptation to shake the ant farm and watch them scurrying to each others aid is far too great to overcome. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew it!

You are a parodist! I knew no one could be that obtuse. So, what's your endgame? DickTurpis (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a WP:RS, WP:V source. Show me where any of it is taken out of context? And if you haven't been following the debate at wp:Talk:Conservapedia maybe you can explain how three reliable sources deemed unreliable by consensus remain reliable? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As an impartial^{[citation NOT needed]} observer, I'd like to suggest that "unreliable" in this case means "wrong about a specific fact", not "wrong about everything in every way". While I'm at it, I'd also like to point out that you're bringing up WP:Conservapedia again for no particular reason. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Kupochama, and I'd like to add that the voices in your head and the ghost of Joe McCarthy don't count as "consensus". --Kels (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob I think you need to go back to talk CP and start a new section on this point, as it seems once again to have been hidden and/or archived. tmtoulouse 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if you repeat the same accusations one more time people will realize how right you've been all along. What have you got to lose? --Kels (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! tmtoulouse 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The point being, cp:Gulf oil spill disaster#Deepwater Horizons may adhere to WP:RS & WP:V closer than WP:Conservapedia#RationalWiki does. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or it may be a blatant lie. Which one is it? That's obvious to anyone who can read. -- Nx / talk 01:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! I know! Pick me, I can answer! --Kels (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Rob. Now I know reading isn't your strongest point (nor comprehension, writing, sticking to a topic, understanding, thinking, or just about any other semi-intellectual pursuit) but surely even a person of Very Little Brain such as yourself can see that Krugman does not blame the oil spill on Obama. Deny this and lose all credibility (nevermind you never had any). DickTurpis (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It says Krugman wrote in the NYT the oil spill is Obama's fault. Where does that fail WP:Verifiability? I can show you several examples in both Rationalwiki & Wikipedia where mainspace text is altered to reflect something other than the underlying cite. And I've spent seven weeks at wp:Talk:Conservapedia showing two blatant & naked example, only to be abused, threatened, relently trolled, slandered, and God knows else trying to fix both Rationalwiki & Wikipedia (and Rationalwiki editors) credibility. Look at the thanks I get. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are disrupting Conservapedia to try to prove some kind of stupid point? (Hint: it's not working) -- Nx / talk 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Rob. It's a verifiability epic fail. Are you seriously arguing that it isn't completely dishonest? Tell you what, try adding that to Wikipedia's article on the spill and see where it gets you. Can I add to to your Barack Obama article that WorldNetDaily wrote that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, because they had that as a choice in a readers' poll (the choice with the least votes, of course). It's technically true; they wrote it. But anyway, good to see you back in standard form, forcing all discussions to lead to your topic du jure. Used to be communism, then it became Berlet, now it's WP's Conservapedia article. Your monomania is out of control; have you seen a shrink about it? DickTurpis (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Stalking Rob

Robert, I accuse you of being a trojan horse. You're obviously Bob Smith famed chronicler of New York (you gave it away with your nom-de-web {see the search box here}) and are about ready to reveal yourself as the arch parodist - outdoing the famous Bugler even. Nice website BTW. 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's really the guy that ruined my credit score. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At least that was funny. Bob Smith is NOT my Senator. He stole Nobs' WP ID and ravaged his credit score! ħuman 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never allowed to complain about sdg or zb

You are never allowed to complain about SDG or ZB files being in the public eye. File:Googledocs.png --Shagie (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your referring to? I've never complained AFAIK, nor have ever even discussed any of that publicly anywhere as best I recollect. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Or any other group/mailserver/etc we have access to. PS, your RW 1.0 caps lack diffs. Doesn't that strike you as opaque? ħuman 04:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? And Human, I'll make a summary statement in the forum section so hopefully we can clear the air (and maybe even more beyond the old conflicts). Hey, and can you do anything about this vandal bin business? It's a real pain in the ass coupled with my unstable wireless connection, edit conflicts, and trying to respond sometimes. Thanks. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is static "pictures" of a wiki are not necessarily clear as to what is going on. You have alleged versions of what you claim people said on a web site that no longer exists, but there is no evidence of whether or not there were later comments. Sadly, the RW 1.0 "archives" are lost. I always wanted them to be uploaded somewhere, but they simply got vaped. Not that they really fucking mattered to anyone in the real world, it was mostly "omg, new userbox, omg Andy's an asshole". Are you back in the bin again? Who did you piss off this time? I'll try to fix it, it must be like being a cast and walking on crutches. ħuman 05:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, after I de-bin you, can you archive some of this pig please? ħuman 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed it. Your IP address was left in the bin. That whole "IP plus user name" thing is so stupid, no one ever gets it right, just as with blocking. Trent unbinned you a day or two ago, IIRC, but probably missed your IP. ħuman 05:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The vandal bin actually is a good idea. Wish we had it at CP a few years ago. Who knows, maybe someday we can get it and open editing a bit more.

After I make a Summary statement in the forum disucssion, I'll came back here and try and answer those points above. You know ultimately, it all revolves around good faith. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)