The precedent is clear: a "priveleged expert" (a) can libel his critics as being complicit in murder, i.e., a lynching http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&… + whereas (b) citing verifiable sources is construed by the good ol' boy network as "personal attacks". Fred said: "I more or less agree with you on the Venona material" Fred: Do you have any sources to support Cberlet original research POV? Please give him a hand if so. Nobs01 On 1/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:

As an aside, my guess is that we do have a Jihadist or two, certainly on the arabic wiki I would assume. I've often wondered how many CIA agents and etc.. we have as well. They would be very foolish to completely refrain from reviewing or interacting with such a dynamic source of data. On topic, I think describing wiki-events in hyperbolic terms is stressful and encourages squabbling. It also embarrasses me and makes me think i might have go to the pub instead of edit the wiki, if I want to engage in a rigourous dialogue ;) Perhaps we could have a lesser version of No Personal Attacks advising against describing an edit war or deletion of ones vanity page a holocaustic genocide, or an arbcom case as a "racial attack" and Lynching (the former I don't know of having occurred, the second refers to a current ARBCOM case ;) Sam Spade

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith <nobs03(a)gmail.com> Date: Jan 22, 2006 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> As cited, using Wikipedia as a forum for unsourced criticism of Prof. Harvey Klehr occurs here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Ven… "It is about the legacy of the Cold War, anticommunist Witch Hunts, Red-baiting, and McCarthyism. Haynes and Klehr and Romerstein are part of a project to make it appear that violations of civil liberties during the Cold War and McCarthyism were justified" Here the "project" becomes the "Venona Posse project" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&… Here he refers to Prof. Klehr's work as "outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&diff=34527735&oldid=34519165 "berlet posse" bring up 673 Google results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=berlet+posse&btnG=Google+Search *All* linked to "right-wing extremist groups." See for example SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet "Berlet specializes in tracking and analyzing right-wing movements. He has written about the John Birch Society, armed militias, Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, racist skinheads, and the Lyndon LaRouche fascist cult." These smears fail Wikipedia *policy (policy, *i.e., a rule) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility#Examples and are defamatory. Nonetheless, ArbCom remonstrances failed consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_… The record is clear, and issues have not changed. It should be noted, I have chosen to work within the project regarding the host of criticisms directed at Wikipedia's credibility, and not taken my case outside Wikipedia, despite a genuine interest in what has been termed the "cultic" nature of concerted efforts to censor and silence people of good will inside Wikipedia Nobs01

Beg pardon, but the author of this incivility states at least a half dozen times in Talk he is well aware of the sourcing; here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Ven… The question is, can he again use Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Processess to impugn his own professional critics, not further the writing of an encyclopedia, and get the NLG good 'ol boy network to assist his smears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio… For those concerned about Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, this bares watching. I have opted to work within the project to call attention to this abuse, and not tell my story outside. nobs On 1/23/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm with Sean here. Nobs is a banned user. He has a long long history of personal attacks. If he's just going to use this list to attack people (no matter if it's a valid reason or not), I'm not sure how helpful it is to let him post here. Mike On 1/28/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

His attacks are of the smear by personal association type. One link he made in a recent article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/ Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030 This attempts to smear me based on my membership in the Lawyers Guild 30 years ago. It was aggravated instances of this behavior that got him a one year ban. Fred On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Mark Ryan wrote:

Dear Sir: The record will reveal I have been accused of 1 (one) personal attack in my Wikipedia career, which occurred during my first ArbCom hearing, not being familiar with the process. Likewise I have never recieved a 3RR warning. I assume you misspoke, repeating the smears against me manufactured by the staff of Political Research Associates. On 1/28/06, Michael Lindeen <wikikitty(a)gmail.com> wrote:

OK. Thank you for the clarifying. Incidently, the NLG evidently has several branches or arms, like its "Police Crimes" and Labor issues groups. Any insight you'd be willing to share on its internal organization would be appreciated. nobs On 1/29/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

Fred, Some good points; it should be noted, I AGF with you and the Committee during the process. It's not my place to tell you how to run your bidness, but it appears now you handed Cberlet a licence to continue his incivility, as I prophesized. A modicum of balance in the proceeding could have helpful. As for the NLG, it really is a unique organization that doesn't come under the Subversive Activities Control Board, nonetheless Congressional Records as late as 1994 refer to it as a "cited Communist Front organization." I assume your membership was benign, and likewise you should be afforded the opportunity to declaim support for Soviet foreign policy. It's not like you've been accused of a lynching. nobs On 1/28/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

Well it sounds better than "support for Soviet democide of Afghanistan." On 1/29/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rob Smith stated for the record: Dear List Moderators: Is this person contributing anything useful to this mailing list, or is he using it only to whin(g)e and launch personal attacks? - -- Sean Barrett | "Oh, bugger," said Pooh, feeling a sean(a)epoptic.org | little more forthright than usual.