Workspace for User:Cberlet[edit]

Current[edit]

Intangible - disruptive and combative editing and POV pushing[edit]

Summary of case[edit]

Intangible engages in:

Reverting with little or no serious discussion
Making sweeping edits and deletions with misleading subject lines
Contentious and confrontational discussion page interactions
Walking editors in circles on discussion pages
Idiosyncratic use of language and translations
Attempts to revise Wikipedia categories citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
Revising articles citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
Sanitizing articles about right-wing groups and their ties to the far right and neofascism
POV pushing through wholesale deletion of the term "far right" from numerous pages

Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right.

Statement by Cberlet (talk · contribs)[edit]

Tag Team[edit]

Deleting whole sections of an article[edit]

Neo-fascism

here

Unreasonable deletions to POV push[edit]

here

Renaming/Deleting Categories in POV way[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15#Category:New_Right_.28Europe.29_to_Category:Nouvelle_Droite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#Category:French_far_right_leagues_to_Category:French_nationalist_leagues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism_%283rd_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism_%284th_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Left_and_Right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_9#Left_and_Right_in_France

3RR[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIntangible&diff=64533097&oldid=64531883

Vision_Thing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=64508161&oldid=64505904 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=64145386&oldid=64141199

Statement by party 2[edit]

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Comment by other editor 1[edit]

Comment by other editor 2[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)[edit]

Intangible Assets[edit]

I am proposing that a group of editors join me in seeking an arbitration to block Intangible from editing pages involving right-wing groups and individuals. If you are interested, please indicate it here.--Cberlet 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Options: Will join in filing - Will post comments - Will assist collection of diffs.

Will join in filing--Cberlet 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Will post in comments--A list of Intangible's controversial edits will be needed (I'm not enough familiar with him, although his edits in this FN page border vandalism, and certainly justify his being blocked from editing at least this page). Tazmaniacs 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. I am worried about the removal by Intangible of the term "far right" from dozens of pages.--Cberlet 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can manage to take the troubles to get a fair, unexhaustive list of such edits, I'm sure we will all have sufficient evidence to judge on pieces, and therefore join in filing. Tazmaniacs 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC

Will post comments — please note, however, that my current job (I'm a student working summers) leaves me only one or two days per week to engage in thorough editing. -- WGee 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Will post comments -- His recent actions on the Vlaams Belang article may be added. --LucVerhelst 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Will post comments — based on my interaction with him on Template talk:Anarchism and a perusal of his edit history. --AaronS 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Will post comments - note the ad nauseam nomination for deletion of categories such as Category:Far right politicians in France, based solely on Intangible's POV of how that would establish "guilt by association" and his obscuring the obvious relevance of the term in French politics (appealing to those altogether ignorant of the matter). He has also created competing categories (since deleted through consensus) that reflect his POV more than anything else. Dahn 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Will post comments He nominated Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States without giving he clear explanation and did a massive nomination for categories that use "right" and "left." He reason was it was poorly defined, ignoring that "right" and "left" are defined by their context (country) and the wikipedia article's explanation of the term. C56C 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Intangible's questionable Diffs[edit]

July 17, FN
July 17, FN
July 17, FN Intangible 19:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[1] Intangible's work at the Communist state article. We may also have to block Intangible from editing pages involving far-left politics, since he won't stop commandeering those articles either. -- WGee 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[2], [3] WGee annihilating changes of another Wikipedia editor, User:Fastifex. Intangible 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
July 18, Guido Demoor Guido Demoor recently died in Antwerp, Belgium. Initially, press coverage led to believe that he was the victim of a beating by 6 youths of North African descent. Later was revealed that he himself had far right connections, that he initiated the fight in question, and that his death was primarily caused by his bad condition, and only circumstantially by the fight (that he started himself). The article as it is now depicts only the first, racially coloured story. I've tried to bring NPOV into it, giving two independent sources, but my edits were plainly reverted by Intangible, while commenting : "rv to sane version - see talk page". --LucVerhelst 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
12 July 2006 Vlaams Belang While reverting vandalism, Intangible reverted good faith edits by TedMundy. After a revert back by TedMundy, new revert by Intangible ("use the talk page first when you want to remove references here"). Revert back by TedMundy, commenting "What references ? I edited the text, made it better. No need to ask permission first, I should think.", upon which Intangible reverts back again : "I don't have time for silly games, so use the talk page first". I step in, and revert back : "I don't see why user TedMundy should first confer on the talk page". New revert from Intangible : "surely it can be included though". Revert back from myself :"I agree with TedMundy. This belongs in the Vlaams Blok article", upon which Intangible goes to my talk page : [4]. My answer on his talk page : [5], upon which Intangible reverts back Vlaams Belang : "instead of proving a POINT, I will add the reference back again". Another revert from me, following some edits by me and another user, and a final revert back by that other user, accompanied by a personal attack by that user on me and TedMundy on the talk page. --LucVerhelst 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, 15 July 2006. Between edits [6] and [7] : discussion between myself and Intangible about the content of the criticism section. Intangible inserts the vision of a minority far right group, using weasel words, trying to depict them as mainstream. I tried to find some middle ground, but I gave up. --LucVerhelst 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
While on the Vlaams Belang page he insists on adding information on the predecessor of the party (see above), on Matthias Storme he "hides" this information behind a legalistic description [8]. He simply reverts my addition : "not at all necessary here, there are wikilinks you know". I gave up. --LucVerhelst 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Intangible has been temporarily blocked for 3RV on Anarchism by User:William M. Connolley, see his talk page. Tazmaniacs 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[9] Deletion of valuable and accurate information, and removal from a valid category. Intangible summarized his edits as "see article"[10], while the article for National Bolshevism was virtually unchanged [11] (although Intangible did obscure some of the references to Facism as an ideological source for the theory by moving them around, they are still prominently in the text - as well they should be); his changes did not reflect those changes as much as they did his very own comment on the talk page for the article. Even if the fascist connection would be as shaky as he claims it is, it is obvious that National Bolshevism would need inclusion in Category:Fascism at the very least for having oriented (I use the term in the vaguest sense) itself after political theories which were brought to the forefront by Fascism - as a parallel, note that the very non-fascist Category:Fascist/Nazi era scholars and writers is also included in the Fascism category. And, of course, it is obvious that several movements covered by the term were also overtly fascist-inspired (arguably, they all are, but let's not get into that). Dahn 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet/Workspace#Intangible_Assets

Please note, that I don't think this proposal should be discussed here at the Front National talk page. Intangible 19:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)a

third nomination for deletion about the relevancy of left & right as category names. Tazmaniacs 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
new Cfd, this time he doesn't likes the term "Far right leagues". Tazmaniacs 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
deletion of "far right", July 20 Tazmaniacs 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ibid, Nouvelle Droite, July 20
Ibid, Front National, July 20, after having just been reversed by User:Rama. Tazmaniacs 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of "far right" at GRECE: June 4, a few hours later, trying to keep "far right" out of the text, including it only in the last lines, deletion of critics, and on July 20, [12], [13]

Stash[edit]

Aryan Nations factional dispute[edit]

August Kreis III Jonathan Williams

Aryan Nations website - Aryan Nations faction led by August Kreis III
Aryan Nations website - Aryan Nations faction led by Jonathan Williams

Conspiracy Theory[edit]

Specific controversial claims[edit]

General controversial claims[edit]

Conspiracy theory as a concept
Conspiracism as a worldview
Conspiracy theories (a collection) Collection of conspiracy theories with short discussion
List of alleged conspiracy theories Another list

Sam Spade[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_17/Cberlet_and_Sam_Spade

Talk:Fascism_and_ideology/Archive_1#Dispute Fascism and ideology [14] [15] [16] [17]

Nobs[edit]

[18]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/A3

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop

Venona dissents[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VENONA_project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence

Contrary view[edit]

Victor Navasky, in an editorial for The Nation critical of recent published works on Soviet espionage, wrote that the VENONA evidence implicating Magdoff is ambiguous at best.

In Appendix A to their book on Venona, Haynes and Klehr list 349 names (and code names) of people who they say "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." They do not qualify the list, which includes everyone from Alger Hiss to Harry Magdoff, the former New Deal economist and Marxist editor of Monthly Review, and Walter Bernstein, the lefty screenwriter who reported on Tito for Yank magazine. It occurs to Haynes and Klehr to reprint ambiguous Venona material related to Magdoff and Bernstein but not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen....The reader is left with the implication--unfair and unproven--that every name on the list was involved in espionage, and as a result, otherwise careful historians and mainstream journalists now routinely refer to Venona as proof that many hundreds of Americans were part of the red spy network. .[19]

Navasky goes on to write that "thus far Venona has been used as much to distort as to expand our understanding of the cold war." He says that "some researchers have misinterpreted these files." Navasky joins other skeptical scholars such as Frank Donner and Ellen Schrecker who observe that basing historical resarch on unredacted intelligence agency files is a dubious proposition. As Navasky puts it "in the absence of hard supporting evidence, partially decrypted files in this world of espionage, where deception is the rule, are by definition potential time bombs of misinformation." [20]

Longer:

Victor Navasky is not happy with the anticommunist interpretation of the Venona material:

In Appendix A to their book on Venona, Haynes and Klehr list 349 names (and code names) of people who they say "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." They do not qualify the list, which includes everyone from Alger Hiss to Harry Magdoff, the former New Deal economist and Marxist editor of Monthly Review, and Walter Bernstein, the lefty screenwriter who reported on Tito for Yank magazine. It occurs to Haynes and Klehr to reprint ambiguous Venona material related to Magdoff and Bernstein but not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen.

The reader is left with the implication--unfair and unproven--that every name on the list was involved in espionage, and as a result, otherwise careful historians and mainstream journalists now routinely refer to Venona as proof that many hundreds of Americans were part of the red spy network.

My own view is that thus far Venona has been used as much to distort as to expand our understanding of the cold war--not just because some researchers have misinterpreted these files but also because in the absence of hard supporting evidence, partially decrypted files in this world of espionage, where deception is the rule, are by definition potential time bombs of misinformation.[21]

Ellen Schrecker agrees. "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these matrerials with complete confidence" (1998, pp. xvii-xviii).

Frank J. Donner. 1980. The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America’s Political Intelligence System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Frank J. Donner. 1990. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ellen Schrecker. 1994. The Age Of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents, Boston: St. Martin's Press.
Ellen Schrecker. 1998. Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Boston: Little Brown.

The Age Of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents; by Ellen Schrecker. Boston: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America; by Ellen Schrecker. Boston: Little Brown, 1998.