sotnd conservaleaks

2007-10-27 SDG User:JesusFreak94
2007-10-27 SDG A technical question
2007-10-27 SDG Update
2007-10-27 SDG promoting a new Sysop
2007-10-28 SDG Image sorting

Update

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:36:31 -0600:

Update: I'm going into the fourth day of intensive private mediation with
SlimVirgin. She is extremely worried about private efforts to identify her.
Her situation is now identical to Daniel Brandt: (a) she is trying to get a
webpage removed <http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm> she
feels is defamatory; (b) she is trying to identify anonymous authors of it;
(c) she is contemplating legal action.

I had to point out to her Brandt got nowhere with this either. Now, it turns
out, another "knowledgeable expert" has entered the investigation, a legal
professor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Robert_Black#Lockerbie_bombing>notable
enough to have his own wikibio and is looking into the matter.
Wikipedia
and Lockerbie
<http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/wikipedia-and-lockerbie.html>

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:18:55 -0600:

Ok, looks like I'm ready to get back to normal editing & contributions.
When my ban is up at WP in December, I'm only going there to vote in certain
elections, build coalitions, and recruit editors.  Any writing I do will be
here, and I will not transfer any of it there (their credibility stinks).

The SlimVirgin/Linda Mack/Lockerbie controversy over there really does have
the potential to do significant damage to any pretense to  objectivity &
credibility; I'm staying away from it completely.  They will not be able to
keep a lid on it, so ultimately it will be spun as another UFO or grassy
knoll theory.  Foreign media & press are already picking up on it, but US
[[MSM]] have thus far, and will probably continue to ignore it.

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:47:44 -0700:

Rob,

You know that Wikipedia vigorously defends the "right" of contributors
to remain anonymous. It can only do you good to respect that "right".

You have to give a little, to "get" a little.

Please learn from my mistakes and be sure to give them their due. Then
they will accept you, and you will be in a position to influence their
enormous project for goodness.

You and me aren't doing Wikipedia any good, sitting on the sidelines.

Ed

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:21:32 -0600:

Ed,  I have told SlimVirgin that privately, and will not participate in the
efforts to "out" her.  OTOH, I have damning evidence of her own own abuses
of policy, protocol, and process to protect Chip Berlet, who by Wikipedia's
own citation policies *which she authored, *should not be used as source for
Wikipedia.  But Wikipedia feels it needs Berlet to counteract attacks from
the LaRouche movement, that is why he is granted special exemptions,
privileges, and rights.  So while Berlet may be a "knowledgeable editor"
(they got burned on use of the term "expert" in the Essjay scandal), his
special status should not extend to artifices on anti-communism and
Dominionism.

So, I fully intend to document the abuses of Slimvirgin, without any attempt
whatsoever to out her real life identity.

Any page from these 208 Google hits the Wikipedia cabal at this moment is
scared to death of, and really wishes to shut these sites down, but failing
to do that, they will pursue the tried and true method of smearing anyone
associated with those sites as paranoid conspiracy theorists akin to chasing
the Roswell aliens.

.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&c...

"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:35:13 -0700:

I read online that GWB and Ronald Reagan examined the alien corpses when on
a secret mission to Roswell to make decisions on the remaining aliens.

I wonder if one escaped and became Lyndon LaRouche?

--TK

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:54:36 -0600:

On 10/29/07, Terry <terry.92...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I read online that GWB and Ronald Reagan examined the alien corpses when
> on a secret mission to Roswell to make decisions on the remaining aliens.

> I wonder if one escaped and became Lyndon LaRouche?

> --TK

She's already covering her tracks; she was accusing me that this was
my site<http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm>,
and threatening legal action.  I think I have convinced her it is not, and
most like Daniel Brandt's.  #20 on the subsection, *The Summer of '07: Linda
Mack becomes "notable", *concludes

*....several months before SlimVirgin started the stub on Daniel Brandt, she
declared that Brandt was an unreliable source on the topic of one Chip
Berlet.*
**

This is foundational to Brandt's charge, that SlimVirgin created the
Brandt's bio with malicious intent to defame him.  My evidence only adds to
that charge.  I showed exactly where that diff was on October 23, 2007.  On
October 26, 2007, the entire page was deleted by a red-link-Admin.  How many
red-link-Admin's do you suppose exist in WP? I thought there was an
elaborate election & consensus process  to grant rights to delete pages.

Here's the cut & pasted Timeline I gave her from our discussions; click on
the first link, the evidence was destroyed.
 Timeline

23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible
source<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Train_Salon&diff=...>
"

12:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Berlet identifies "leftist writer" whom Chris
Arabia quoted anonymously, " This complaint was written by Daniel
Brandt<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-0...>
"

00:01, 8 August 2005 SlimVirgin joins consensus Chip Berlet is not a
reputable source<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism...>for
the [[Roots of Anti-Semitism]] article.

2005-09-21 19:24 Talk:Chip Berlet (->Laird *Wilcox*) Nobs01 REDFLAG's
Berlet's slander on Wilcox

October 30, 2005 Brandt bio created by editor whom previously (a) described
Brandt as not a credible source, and (b) was identified by Berlet as the
source of anonymous criticism.

Nov. 7 2005 Nobs01 disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point (breaching
experiment) to call attention of systematic effort to discredit Berlet's
critics, Wilcox & Brandt.

January 2006 SV rewrites Berlet bio, states she still does not consider
Brandt a credible source.

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:00:54 -0700:

Rob,

The odd thing is that the LaRouche Movement is actually right on a few
points. The prejudice against using them as a source is a cause of
dismay for me.

It would serve NPOV better to say, "The LaRouce Movement claims that X
is true" rather than to omit all mention of their ideas.

Ed

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:06:21 -0600:

On 10/29/07, Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rob,

> The odd thing is that the LaRouche Movement is actually right on a few
> points. The prejudice against using them as a source is a cause of
> dismay for me.

> It would serve NPOV better to say, "The LaRouce Movement claims that X
> is true" rather than to omit all mention of their ideas.

> Ed

I haven't read his stuff, but I am inclined to say Berlet is a longtime &
credible Larouche watcher, and what Berlet says about LaRouche is probably
close to accurate.  But the big big problem is granting Berlet *carte
blanc*to smear anti-communists & the Christian Coalition as LaRouchies
& fascists.
Fred Bauder & Krill Lokshin are ready to curb his excesses.  FloNight seems
possibly willing to discuss it.

But others on ArbCom, the Board of Trustee's & even Jimbo himself are at the
moment standing behind Berlet's extremism.

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:53:13 -0700:

It is a policy violation to "smear" anyone there. NPOV requires them
to use a formula like X said Y about Z.

Ed

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:45:01 -0600:

That simply is not true; certain editors are granted special privileges to
use the most vicious of defamatory smears, which I am documenting right now
in our WP entry.

Aschla...@aol.com, Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:17:16 EDT:

Ed,

That can still be a smear even though the format "X said Y about Z" is  used.
 Even questions can be a smear, as in "When did you stop beating your  wife?"

Andy

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:48:37 -0600:

Well, evidently the "airstrike over Wikipedia" (as RW characterized it) is
being read. SlimVirgin & the mediator contacted me & want to talk somemore.
My standards of proof are much more stringent than WP's (written by
SlimVirgin, incidentally). I begin with what is outlined in WP:Historical
method<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_au...>,
then only after these tests are met, I would apply WP's core content
policies (WP:Verifiability is a travesty, and invites intellectual
dishonesty.  For example, John T. Flynn wrote for the *New Republic* and
Ralph De Toledano for *Reader's Digest, *yet under existing WP policy, WP
"expert" Chip Berlet's website lists these authors as
"racist<John%20T.%20Flynn,%20While%20You%20Slept:%20Our%20Tragedy%20in%20Asia%20and%20Who%20Made%20It,%20(1951).%20Republished,%20Americanist%20Library,%20Boston%20and%20Los%20Angeles:%20Western%20Islands,%201965.>."
So anybody can cite WP's inhouse "expert,' link to his site to "verifiy"
"expert" "scholarship," and get publicly defamed and banned for challenging
his "expert" credentials).

SlimVirgin fears she may *Causualty Number Three* based on these
"verifiable" websites.
**
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&...
=

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html

http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm

But I just don't see conclusive evidence yet, neither have a reason to raise
the issue at this time even if it could be independently verified by another
reputable source.

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:55:57 -0600:

Heads up, Andy.

A subversive infiltrator at the Values Voter conference. From [[PRA]] site,

http://pra-wire.blogspot.com/

 Setting up in DC

*Three of us from PRA (Katherine Ragsdale, Tarso Ramos, and Chip Berlet)
have arrived in Washington DC, and are setting up our base of operations at
the Washington Hilton. *

It is a busy schedule of events, but we will do our best to cover aspects of
the conference that may not make headlines, but will be of interest to our
readers.

Details to follow...

-Chip Berlet

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Join PRA for Special Coverage of the 2007
"Values Voters" Summit
(Washington, DC) Thousands of Christian Right activists from around the
country will gather in Washington, DC, from Friday through Sunday, October
19th – 21st, for a national political conference. The event, dubbed The
Washington Briefing <http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?c=WASH_BRIEFING>, is
billed by its sponsors as "the largest gathering of values voters from
around the country." At a time when the Christian Right is in discord over
who to support in 2008, virtually all the Republican presidential candidates
will appear in person to make their cases. The results of a straw poll on
these candidates will be announced before the end of the conference.

The summit is sponsored by some of the most influential Christian Right
groups in the country including the political arms of Focus on the Family,
Family Research Council, and American Family Association; Gary Bauer's
American Values group; and the High Impact Leadership Coalition, headed by
Bishop Harry R. Jackson.

In addition to speeches from politicians, top Right Wing leaders will
address a broad range of issues including abortion, "the homosexual agenda,"
the threats posed to national security by immigration and Islam, racial
reconciliation, and voter mobilization. Confirmed speakers include Gary
Bauer, Bill Bennett, Robert Bork, Ken Blackwell, James Dobson, Newt
Gingrich, Bishop Harry Jackson, Richard Land, Edwin Meese, Star Parker, Tony
Perkins, Robert Rector, Alan Sears, *Phyllis Schlafly, and Paul Weyrich*.

PRA will be filing brief reports from this Christian Right political rally.
For additional background and in depth analysis, visit our website's special
section on the Christian
Right<http://www.publiceye.org/portal/top-domtheo-page.html>.

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:58:57 -0600:

Wow. Much going on. WP ArbCom Chairman Fred Bauder was just threatened with
being placed on
moderation<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084612.html>on
the Wiki mailing list. Danial Brandt says,

*1.* Is SlimVirgin one and the same as Linda Mack of Lockerbie fame?

*2.* Was Linda Mack of Lockerbie fame operating as someone's agent of
influence, while pretending to be a journalist/researcher?

...Eventually the first point will have to be conceded, and when that
happens the second point will be considered worthy of another look. Then the
question of Slim's COI on her Lockerbie/Salinger edits, and the oversighting
that Jimbo endorsed, will cause people to ask about the entire foundation
upon which Wikipedia rests, as it claims to bring all of the world's
(dis)information to all of the world's people.

Brandt has had a rather insightful track record in the
Siegenthaler/Berlet/Katefan/Essjay and now SlimVirgin controversies.
And Jimbo Wales own actions are being reviewed by ArbCom at this moment.

The latest drama is occurring at this blogsite,
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/wikipedia-and-lockerbie.html, a
Scottish law professor who has been investigating Lockerbie for 20 years,
and only recently came upon the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack allegations.  ArbCom
Chairman Fred Bauder is engaging him at that blog, and now it appears this
independent, reputable & knowledgeable researcher is poised to be
systematically and maliciously defamed through the Wikipedia slander
apparatus as another hate-filled, bigoted attack site for daring to openly
question the credentials of the author and enforcer of WP's core content and
Attribution policies.  Sheeesh........

"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 4 Nov 2007 15:47:46 -0700:

They are going absolutely nuts over there at WP.  Take look at Wiken-1:

>* * Suppressing mere mention of the allegation,  even after it's on

slashdot,
*>* * Deleting good faith questions of slashdot readers asking what's up,
*>* * Trying to delete links to ANY site where somebody might accidentally
*>* stumble upon the SV=LM=MI5 *[ed note: SlimVirgin=Linda Mack=MI-5] *story,
or even sites that link to sites
*>* that might make the allegation
*>* * Trying to indef block and otherwise attack anyone who resist the
purges.
*>*
*>* You couldn't WRITE a better conspiracy theory than this.   Our
*>* behavior has been a recipe for how to increase the population of
*>* tin-foil-hat wearers.
*>*
*>* And of course, it's actually all fueled by compassion and
*>* defensiveness, not by any conspiracy.  But woe to anyone out there in
*>* internet land who might be off their meds-- they must be having quite
*>* a ride.*

Kind of reminds my of our own famous "Night of the Blunt Knives."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084621.html

2007-10-27 SDG User:JesusFreak94
2007-10-27 SDG A technical question
2007-10-27 SDG Update
2007-10-27 SDG promoting a new Sysop
2007-10-28 SDG Image sorting

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.