Feel free to join in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research

Anything Berlet says or does should be utterly crushed, showing no mercy.

Reference (11) may be the longest cite in all of Wikipedia. Is this some half baked argument to avoid BLP issues? "It's only a reference, not article content." The "reference" itself contains 3 links.

The preposterous Berlet has been hiding behind the wide skirts of powerful but gullible admins for years, getting away with murder on Wikipedia. His raison d'etre is the "anti-semitic" smear job.

The reason for this latest assault is no doubt due to the activities today on WikiQuote

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:VP#Using_W..._for_a_vendetta

and his own article.

Finally hoist by his own petard, people have been adding a damning Justin Raimondo quote to his article and elsewhere, which describes Berlet for what he is, a propagandist and political hack with no scruples, who is paid to smear people. Given that Berlet has had free range from admins to smear anyone he likes on the site previously -- Quoting his own writings -- it would be hypocritical for Berlet to complain about this, wouldn't it?

As for this Brandt business, perhaps he believes Brandt is involved in the Raimondo quote pushing somehow, and is fighting back. Or else he's going on one massive WP:POINT spree. Or else, he just can't help himself, which is quite likely.

The PIR article proper has 331 words. Reference (11) has 479 words. This is an obvious attempt to include improper BLP material. I haven't seen such bullshit since Jayjg's "Allegations of Apartheid" series of articles.

Indeed.

After the WP fiascos of December, I very naively figured that WP would engage in a process of reassessment, and would feel the need to root out the blatantly obvious cases of corruption like Berlet, Jayjg and co -- if only to dampen the entertainment of the gathering movement of external critics.

However, the absurdity has just continued in earnest. In fact, in light of the Seth Finkelstein biography debacle on New Years Eve, and now this, Wikipedia seems to be getting worse!

I guess all of this nonsense only hastens WP's demise in the end. So there are mixed feelings all round.

Somebody (Viridae) finally showed some sense and cut back on the reference.

Be In The Square … Or Be The Square

• Public Information Research
• Talk:Public Information Research

Can you choose wisely, GlassHoppers?

Jonny

Was this one of you? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184196223

We don't have a "Rx StrangeLove" in our member list, but that's not to say that the corresponding person or persons could not be regged here under one or more other names.

Jonny

I actually meant the edit he was reverting.

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184196223

And when did you develop this strange obsession with knowing the identity of the person behind the edit?

We won't name your name to the Unwikipedian Activities Committee this time, but consider this your one and only warning, and don't let it happen again.

Jonny

More idle interest than strange obsession.

Jonny

Some random WP admin thinks Unknown Justin posts here...

Yes another Entrusted Espouser Of The Espoused Values (EEOTEV) who secretly harbours the heresy that the identity of the messenger trumps the meaning of the message.

Yow! If this keeps up, people will start saying that Wikipediots are Hypocrites or ∑thang!

Jonny

'''''This page blank for 24 hours to honor the memory of Wei Wenhua.'''''

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184196223




Also, so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hut_8.5 apparently somehow much have checkuser?

No, just finely honed linguistic skills.

So finely honed are the Pinheaded Fishheads of these Mackisch Haifisch that they can no longer see the semantics for the syntax.

Pragmatix? you say?

Fugettaboutit !!!

Jonny

At the moment it appear that the winner (and still champ) is Brandt. Reference (11) is completely gone along with the sentence with the nasty innuendo, all removed by Leatherstocking.

Now the embittered loser, Berlet, has a tantrum on the article talk page, reposting the material removed from the "reference."

Next he will stomp his feet and say "I can too say bad things about Brandt. I can too." He seems to believe he is an expert on the things he makes up and others should respect this.

Just wait a week or two. Stubborn editors tend to have their way, eventually, in certain wiki spaces.

Greg

Agreed. That is why BLP victims can never get any peace on WP even if they have their articles removed. PIR is being abuse as a surrogate bio by Berlet. The Wikipedia "community" is simply too dysfunctional to be permitted to make BLP decisions on any level. These decisions should be made by a trustworthy neutral and independent entity.

Still good to see Berlet get his comeuppance, even if momentarily.