Just for completeness:

AFD #1, end of 2005

AFD #2, 2006

AFD #3, 2006 (in that one, someone claiming to be Bambenek himself asked for deletion!)

AFD John C. Bambenek, 2007

RFC, 2007

It's now listed as a "perennial request". Right after the Gay Nigger Association of America.

In most of them, there's Will, manipulating and backstabbing.

And don't forget Bambenek's rant on MercatorNet.

Yeah, great "encyclopedia" you've got there, assmunchers.

Does that mean there's a chance for getting it back, considering the perennial request for the Gay Nigger Association of America has finally resulted in it being overturned and the article reinstated?

Never let it be said that Will can't take a joke.

On the various talk pages, Will keeps denying that he pushes POV on LaRouche articles, demanding that someone show him a diff. This would be a good place to start.

I have no particular interest in this whole business personally, but since when is Chip Berlet "a widely cited expert on the far right in America"? He isn't a widely-cited expert in anything, from what I can determine. Unless you count Slimmy's own contributions to Wikipedia... Besides, I don't think he knows much about the far right anyway. His main interest, aside from Lyndon LaRouche, seems to be criticizing left-wing folks for not being "rainbow" enough. His usefulness to American liberalism is practically nil. If he wanted to do something worthwhile, he wouldn't spend all his time on a marginal-at-best figure like LaRouche, who is really just a stalking-horse to him - I can understand that he hates LaRouche for referring to himself as a "Democrat," something he clearly isn't (though he might believe in democracy to some degree), but Berlet might as well write for the History Channel, for all the good he does.

Slimmy makes a good point about the effect of LaRouche's having run for President 8 times (is that all? I thought it was at least 50 times), but it's still pretty damn obvious that she and Mr. Beback have cherry-picked, if not actually rigged, sources for those articles practically from the get-go. It remains one of the best examples of well-poisoning Wikipedia has - even if they were "topic-banned," the shit-puddle effect would still intimidate other WP'ers for a long time to come - maybe 2-3 years or more.

He dislikes LaRouche because they were both in the same group in the Communist Party and LaRouche "besmirched" it or something when he left. Or that's what i've picked up from the bouts between Jayen and Will/Slim.

I could certainly believe that - actually, is there anything or anyone LaRouche hasn't "besmirched"? Other than folks like Beethoven, Liebnitz, Plato, and George Washington? That's the whole point, seems like.

Mind you, I do think he deserves some props for his understanding of modern economic control structures.

Really? I had no idea. But if so I was right on the money eh!

Not so. For starters, neither was ever in the CPUSA. They were in other leftist groups, and you may not place much stock in sectarian differences among leftists, but they certainly do. Also, they were never in the same group.

Berlet really isn't much of a leftist, which seems to be Somey's point, more or less. He discovered early on that there was money to be made as a watchdog for Wall Street foundations, particularly the Ford Foundation, keeping leftist groups from criticizing the financial power structure by accusing them of "conspiracism."

Berlet doesn't write much about LaRouche now. He has written a lot about the Tea Party lately. Could you elaborate on why you think LaRouche isn't a Democrat? If you put aside the conspiracies and focus on policy, he seems to me to advocate the standard Democratic line from 1930-1970 -- pro-unions, pro-regulation, etc. So he's a throwback, IMO. But clearly you are thinking differently.

I see that Slim, having lost the argument at the BLP board, is starting over from scratch, with a new RfC and the usual mass advertising campaign to promote it. Isn't that called "forum shopping"? Or, "starting forest fires of discussion"?

What's this?

Note that after the first BLPN thread went overwhelmingly against her and Jayen removed the Duggan material, Slim immediately restores it in this edit. You'll have to look carefully for it, because she throws up an astonishing smokescreen of other miscellaneous edits to cover her tracks. And before you click on the link, guess whether she says anything about it in her edit summary.

Yeah, but we get to see Slim promoting the reliability of "reports in high quality sources". Which means to her "what some guy told a big newspaper one time, and they printed it." Sometimes it means "what some guy told a small newspaper one time, and they printed, and a big newspaper then picked up."

Slim has no science. Her world is journalism, and a slimy one it is, too. Alas, she personally has written more of WP:V policy than any other author (3 times more than the next author, her pet Crum375). Together they have made more edits to the policy page than the next 10 editors put together (literally!)

A similar pattern is repeated on WP:IRS (the reliable source guideline page) where again, SlimVirgin is historical contributor #1, and Jossi is #2 (with 1/2 of her edits). Together, this tag-team had edited more of that guideline than the next 8 editors put together.

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinf...&wiki=wikipedia

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinf...&wiki=wikipedia

So, WP's policies on verifiability and reliable sources reflect SlimVirgin's view of what a reliable source is. Which is (alas) nonsense.

Chortle for fucks sake just how cossetted are these guys? What is being described here was Standard Operating Procedure across most radical groups through the 60s and 70s. There was a book by Saul Alinsky "Rules for radical" which outlined all those plays. Including "If your organisation is too small to make a noise, stink up the place", "the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself", "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it".

I think that it is true that SlimVirgin is making a lot of surprising newbie mistakes. She admits here that for all intents and purposes, she was fishing for editors that think the LaRouche group is a cult, so that they would share her bias and vote her way on the RfC regardless of how it works with Wikipedia rules.

I thought that was why the Fringe Wikiproject existed in the first place?

For wiki-cultists, narcissists, and superannuated children (another name for narcissist) to attack their previous gurus, or other gurus? Indeed, you've got it.

Liburne's rules for radicals could as well be rules for normal 4 year-olds. A great deal of "performance art" is adults merely behaving like small children.

The BLP of LaRouche on WP illustrates so many things wrong with WP at one time, that it probably could be used all by itself, like some kind of universal bad example, like the ineluctable Nazis of Godwin..

Just off the top of my head, the LaRouche BLP illustrates:

[1] The unavoidability of WP:SYNTH in any WP article.
[2] The unavoidability of somebody using BLPs to get revenge, or to attack particular disliked people.
[3] The badness of allowing BLP on WP due to [1] and [2] (just two among many OTHER reasons).
[4] The badness of modern journalism as a reliable source about anything.
[5] The badness of WP's WP:IRS policy which includes newspapers in the category of "high-quality information sources" even when they merely repeat what some family member told some reporter.
[6] The badness of allowing a few editors to control WP policy by steady and unrelenting editing of key policy-pages like WP:V and WP:IRS to suit their personal agendas.
[7] The badness of allowing WP admins who are involved in disputes to tag-team up to revert content to their own liking, and block and ban editors who have differing viewpoints. SUX2BU, Herschel.
[8] The badness of defining "meatpuppets" via the "Duck test", which essentially allows the banning of people for their opinions, as a violation of anti SOCKPUPPET policy.
[9] The badness of allowing accussations of antisemitism to be used as a weapon, to de-rail any other discussion of anything at all. And in the service of nearly any viewpoint one desires, if one can only locate an Unhappy Jewish Person (UJP) who is involved in the particular issue.
[10] The badness of SlimVirgin, on account of her involvement in [1] through [9] inclusive.
And finally:
[11] The badness of SlimVirgin in general, for reasons not specified above.

Have I missed any? I was hoping for an even dozen.

We all did it to some extent. The building site at the top was once the old football stadium, and the housing in the foreground was earmarked for demolition to build a car park, the block houses around Mowbray street had been bought by the club and they had started to gut them. We wanted the council to deny planning permission and had squatted the houses to stop further 'vandalism'. Things weren't looking good as the senior councillors were arm in arm with the club. However, they had young teenage girls, and I had a couple of cute teenage boys (not mine BTW I was only a couple of years older). Suffice to say that within 10 days of the council vote those kids had been shown the cities overcrowding and homelessness, and the noise and stink was firmly in the councillor's homes.

There are other residential streets in the city that are similarly NOT car parks.

One day I might relate the story of The Night of Booze, LSD, Amphetamines, and Commie infiltration of this place.

Perhaps, but nowadays it SUX2BSV. During my 2-year sojourn at WP, I was never the WP:OWNer of any of those articles. I was fighting a defensive action to keep them moderately defamatory as opposed to ultra-defamatory. Compare my lot with that of SV, along with Will, who plays Igor to her Dr. Frankenstein.They have been the unchallenged WP:OWNers for over 5 years, and now they see the mob gathering outside the gates with torches and pitchforks. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Whatever. She's won. Five years of control means she plays the Wikipedia game much better than you. You're here, complaining about her to a bunch of nitwits, and she has hundreds of people a day reading her article. Have some grace and quit badgering the poor lady.

I think Jayen will be a much better owner though.

All good points, but I am beginning to wonder whether there is not a growing tendency to take the BLP policy seriously. Scott MacDonald made a big splash by doing it, and now there is a whole flock of new editors at the Lyndon LaRouche article giving Slim a hard time. Slim despises BLP, you can tell from her comment about it having a bad reputation among some editors (who have yet to be named.) But if the "next generation" of Wikipedia editors decides to take it seriously, then Wikipedia could possibly become actually more responsible than the "reliable sources" press (who will defame public figures at the drop of a hat.) And the old "cabal" types at Wikipedia may have to step aside.



As somebody around here said recently, it aint' over until the slim virgin sings.

You so funny!

I see that she has created account:SlimVirgin II a while ago. No doubt in the process of eventually making her edit history disappear.

Yeah, if I were her, I'd do that, too.

Dang, they're coming out faster than new iPod models. Introducing: SlimVirgin III (T-C-L-K-R-D) !

Yuh think?