The Gold spike has never been in dispute. And my source has impecible credentials.
*John George & Laird Wilcox, American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others, Prometheus Books, 1996 (ISBN 1-57392-058-4).
*Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159, p. 7.

May I respectfully suggest that we either find our way back to the Chipster (in his Wikipedia incarnation, please,) or else split some of this material off into the new off-topic political discussion subforum?

Please do. What was a critique of Chip's wikipedia exploits has deteriorated into something entirely different. All we need left is someone to link him with the Illuminati and our efforts will be completely wasted.

And behold! The matter is now before the arbcom. The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.

It looks like a few other senior Wikipedians are tired of the Chipster and his clone. Except for Morven. What's the story on him? He seems like a bit of a dolt.

Marvin Diode makes a pretty good statement, linked above.

I believe HK was referring to this statement by Matthew Brown aka Morven:I don't know the history behind the whole Chip Berlet thing, but from the looks of it, it seems that all the LaRouche opponents want this to be slipped under the rug as quietly as possible - which is why Cberlet has taken his month-long "wikibreak".

Will Beback says,
I'd call it a major breach of BLP. Will Beback himself basically endorses Arbitration,

HK, I think this might be a Berlet sock, Wysdom. He was editing both Fred Newman and List of Americans in the Venona papers. Can't think of another editor with such diverse interests.

A significant number of editors has come forward to criticize the Chipster. He must be serious about his Wikibreak, to refrain from holding forth on such an occasion. Of course, his clone Dking is quite capable of doing exactly what Chip would do.

It is currently at 2/3/1 against it being accepted by ArbCom. It was at 3/0/0 earlier, but Charles Matthews changed from Accept to Undecided, and the last 3 all rejected it.

Looks like it might be swept under the carpet.

Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.

"Hardindr?"

Hmmm....

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

Maybe not relevant. Maybe an attempt at WP:POINT by the Chipster?

And, the latest: JzG claims that the Wikipedia Review is behind all of this. Another loyal reader!

I've long suspected he flips a coin every time he makes a comment, vote, proposal, or mailing list post, to decide whether to be completely fair and reasonable, or totally nutty. It's similar to how the Batman villain Twoface flips a coin to decide whether to be good or evil.

JzG says
In relation to the Motion brought by Fred on my behalf,

1. I voted for Will for Admin, 21 June 2005.

2. I encouraged another user in the Nobs, et al case to settle his differences with Will

3. I declared on this Forum, 16th January 2007, " I would have voted for Will Beback for Arb if I had been allowed to back in December."

Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.

We know he doesn't like WR much, for one thing... though he clearly does read much of what's discussed here.

You're presumably referring to this ArbCom Clerk's statement, correct? My assumption would be that Mr. Thatcher, being a right-winger himself, resents Berlet's and King's characterization of Larouche as a right-wing extremist ideologue/demagogue, or whatever right-wing (insert epithet here) thing they happen to be calling him this week. Other than that, he's just stating the obvious - Berlet and King are obviously as far from "neutral" as it's possible to get on the subject.

Sorry, but I'll have to vote against that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107602592

I don't know who he is, but I know where he is. He's in Rochester, New York.

http://auralmoon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=329

From hostmask search:
Thatcher-131 (n=Thatcher@cpe-72-226-224-86.rochester.res.rr.com) 72.226.224.86 | ROAD RUNNER * UNITED STATES
Thatcher (n=Thatcher@urmc-nat18.urmc.rochester.edu) 128.151.71.18 | UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER * UNITED STATES

"Bloody brilliant."

There are quite a few WP people round there. Why has nobody accused them of being all socks?

Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.

I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.

And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great!

I'm not so sure, the extreme marxist left in the UK is known for being anti-environmentalist like LaRouche and being homophobic- a quote from Larouche:

"They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw!"

Well, it's no secret that I consider Wikipedia to be an Unreliable Source on the subject of LaRouche. My personal take is that LaRouche's views are not simplistic enought to be placed on the right-left scale. I am generally unimpressed by both Rightists and Leftists.

Exactimundo! Depending on who you talk to, Larouche is either "impossible to poitically categorize," or "ideologically incoherent," or simply "all over the frickin' place." I tend to hold the latter view of him, myself...

Anyhoo, the way I see it, Berlet & Co. are accusing Larouche of being a fascist mostly because Larouche has been accusing them of being fascists. Larouche has probably accused almost everybody of being fascists at some point or other, but some people take it all personal-like, I guess...

More to the point, this "Case of Walter Lippmann" book is chock-full of claims and theories that seem designed specifically to really, really piss off all sorts of people. There's the Rockefellers, "Atlanticists," "Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk), "monetarists," "aristotelians" (always lower-cased!), "proto-Tories," "Neo-Fabians" (whose ranks supposedly include Noam Chomsky), "heteronomists" (evidently this was his word for cultural-diversity advocates), environmentalists, drug addicts, the Carter Administration, the UN, the Tudors, the Hapsburgs, Albrecht von Wallenstein, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Andrew Jackson, Milton Friedman, Interpol (not the band, though he probably wouldn't have liked them either), "non-Euclidians" (I wonder if he read any H.P. Lovecraft?)... the guy attacks both ends of the political spectrum and the middle too, all at the same time! And to top it all off, here's what Lyndon Larouche says about Martin Luther:

For context, note that "Fugger" refers to an Augsburg-based Christian banking family, and also that at this point in the book, the editor/proofreader has obviously given up and allows Larouche to use the phrase "in that respect" redundantly in the same sentence.

Either way, this anti-Luther connect-the-dots rhetoric is straight out of the Jayjg/SlimVirgin playbook. Slimmy and Mantanweissland could have practically written it themselves.

Nevertheless, I'd be lying if I stated that there isn't any material in there that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic if cherry-picked, because there is. But only if cherry-picked. The problem for people like Dennis King and Chip Berlet is that if they want to bash Larouche, they have to make the case that he's anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic - because those are their constituencies, and not enough people are going to be offended by his tirades against "neo-Fabians" and "monetarists."

Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers" —

Jonny

I've moved an offtopic discussion about Conservapedia and the Democrats to the Politics forum

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13390

Imagine what it must have been like for the wives. As soon as one of 'em has a kid, suddenly she's "Mother Fugger."

And when her kinder have kinder she becomes a Großmutter Fugger.

Jonny

Well... it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.

Well that's one way of looking at it.

That does rather remind me of the theories about the Bilderberg Group, which was set up by the shadowy manipulative figure otherwise known as....

Gee, that sounds oddly φamiliar …

Yes, here it is — The Kinder, Gentler Aristocraps —

WikiΦabian Society

Jonny

Now there's an impressive eyebrow.

Flonight, back at the arbcom ranch, is calling upon the arbcom to give the Chipster and his sidekick "more support."

I moved a few more Conservapedia-oriented posts to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13390.

Oh Chip's fabulous!

My favorite article of his is Dominionism, where he's not only editting the article, he's pretty much the sole source.

I'd miss him if he were gone, he's my favorite whacko conspiracy theorist.

Amazing.

They got rid of the [[Dr. Dobson]] is a klansman section, and Berlet's name was taken off the Template as Wikipedia's premier expert, but Dobson is still targeted on the Template.

So this is a major change, similiar to the Brandt episode; even when an alleged "notable expert" signs his name to a guilt-by-association smear Wikipedia is now hiding thier identity.

It's not clear to me that those at the helm really appreciate just how far off course Wikipedia is drifting, under the influence of dual agents who have secondary personal agendas other than accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting informative articles worthy of a respectable public encyclopedia.

Is it or more like the proposal here, on page 8

It's more like a misanthropic social networking site that has devolved into petty political wrangling dominated by a clownish and mean-spirited dominance hierarchy.

I'd agree with that but let's look at these two quotes:

If Wikipedia is the 8th ranked site on the Web, a dispassionate and objective analysis will sooner or later emerge, notwithstanding Wikipedia's own public relations efforts to the contrary.

When I began editing on Wikipedia, I had no opinion one way or the other regarding the integrity of the site. I might have shrugged off my negative experience as a one-off misadventure, were it not for the comparable stories emanating from the media, the blogosphere, and WR (none of which I was aware of until after my own shocking and dispiriting collision with the uncongenial and misanthropic WP Cabal).

I'll have to read about your case. Gimme a link somewhere you beleive is a good starting point.

Ultimately WP's credibility crisis was a choice they made -- it is not as if they were not warned thier behavior, attitudes, written policies, and Arbitration Rulings would not lead to this result.

This is where I started writing up my experiences...


If you want to delve deeper, I can give you links to the RfC and to the now-blanked and buried material on my userpage and elsewhere on Wikipedia.