Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/05

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation | Archives
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/05)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Petros471 in topic Registered users


IP addresses

Latest comment: 18 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion
  • comment All three links in question were to writings by Chip Berlet hosted on the publiceye.org website. All three were added to Wikipedia articles by User:Cberlet. Read the rules: "Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included." 68.239.87.12 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment the second User:Cberlet has again restored the links to his own articles in violation of the above rules. More generally, writings from Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are questionable as sources on Wikipedia given his peculiar world view, a mutant version of post-1960s identity politics which often veers into an extreme anti-populism analysis. He also continues to be obsessed with keeping old and now irrelevant controversies alive by taking jabs at other groups on the left he had disagreements with, e.g. with the Christic Institute. Is there any way Use:Cberlet can be directed not to edit any articles on people or groups that he is known as a critic of in real life? It seems that NPOV and basic ethics would demand it. 68.239.87.12 03:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Michael Ruppert. Added critical material written by Norman Solomon, stored on publiceye.org with permission of Solomon. see diff: [1]. Other link was to online review of articles by many other authors.--Cberlet 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Conspiracism. Created page after conspiracy theorists repeatedly place text on Wikipedia wrongly claiming that I had invented the term. Page identified scholar who actually had popularized the term. See: [2]. Survived vote for deletion.--Cberlet 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: Christic Institute. Added first alternative POV to what was a puff piece on this controversial group. My monograph--published in print form--is one of the few published extensive discussions of the Christic Institute--and text added to Wikipedia primarily cites former Christic client with serious criticism. Prior to my addition, entry failed to mention that Christics's "most high-profile case" had been dismissed by a judge and that the clients had complained about Christic's handling of the case.--Cberlet 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Summary. I have edited hundreds of pages, and before I link to a page at <publiceye.org> I search for other pages that can be linked.--Cberlet 03:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 64.142.89.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) constantly changes articles about bands that have proper nouns for names. For instance, a passage in the Guns N' Roses article said "Guns N' Roses is" (correct) and he changed it to "Guns N' Roses are" (incorrect). The vandal suggested we discuss it on the Guns N' Roses talk page. We did so and concluded with proper evidence that "Guns N' Roses is" is the correct wording. However, when we go back to revert the changes 64.142.89.105 has made, he reverts back immediately and calls us vandals that should discuss the situation further. He then threatens to report us to Wikipedia, despite the fact that he has been blocked and banned from Wikipedia numerous times for doing the exact same thing. Please prevent him from further trolling and vandalizing Wikipedia. TheNewMinistry 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
you should talk BlueGoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <-- Sockpuppet, if you're going to use sockpuppets to 1) nominate and article, then 2) revert war over the font size of the tags you've added, then I don't see how using multiple IPs is any more or less deceptive--172.167.140.146 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
IPs are AOL, suggest user of them registers one account, BlueGoose was given a short block for use of sockpuppets. Petros471 08:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Registered users

Latest comment: 18 years ago77 comments33 people in discussion
  • Redjax888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- He is editing an article talk page, Talk:Bob Brinker, as if it were the article, changing headings and significantly editing, changing, removing previous editor's comments. He seems to be doing it out of ignorance of WP guidelines, though to promote his POV. An IP has done this previously, probably same person, and now this newly registered user is making the same edits. I posted a note on user's talk page, and have (Confession coming, please absolve me) reverted him 3 times within 24 hours. I couldn't find any WP policy I could quote, telling him not to edit other people's comments on an article talk page. What should I do next? // ॐ Priyanath 03:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Redjax888 continues to remove other people's comments from the Talk:Bob Brinker page - see Talk:Bob Brinker history. He has done it seven times now, and possibly more under an IP. He has received four requests/warnings on his talk page User_talk:Redjax888, from two different editors, including a last warning. A 24 hour block would be most appropriate, I think. ॐ Priyanath 17:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Redjax888 seems to be back deleting content with his AOL IP address 172.194.65.210

The information posted on the web site they keep deleting exposes a massive cover-up by Bob Brinker summarized here http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/7/86-94#message_9 . Is there a way to hard code that information into the page? WikiHelperUSA 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears to be a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. I'm attempting to mediate. Request another opinion though. Although, recommend further investigation to the sockpuppetry claims below. ^demon[yell at me] /22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment- With the new arrangement of these pages, I'm not sure if I've put this in the right place, or if something like this needs to be reported at all. However, I felt this case was slightly less benign than most, as the user is obviously fairly familiar with Wikipedia and tried to impersonate Jimbo. Please leave me a message that says something to the effect of "you put this report in the right place" or "this was an absolute waste of time; in the future, please do this..." Thanks. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Has been indef blocked for impersonation. Petros471 19:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Tooj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Toojbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Toojdwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Username117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Username77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeatedly uploading this image from a family website and substituting it for images in articles including (but not limited to) Rush Limbaugh, Geek, North Korea, etc. Pattern of abuse has been going on since late April [6]. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The vandal continues with his vandalism in every article he removes the word NAZI from NAZI germany. This causes the problem that when you click on the word germany you come to the germany of today page and not nazi germany. He has done this in many articles if not all that he has seen. Also where there is no link he still removes the word nazi. Which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=49776482&oldid=49751473 The he says he removes it because other battle boxes dosent have it. Well that is because he has removed it from the other boxes. He has removed it from other boxes and then says look at the other boxes. He contiunes with his changeing of sourced figures without stateing any source for example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kiev_%281941%29&diff=49954899&oldid=48309290 and as always he minimizes axis losses and maximizes allied ones just as he has done in many other articles. And now he has started with grammatical vandalism which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Persia&diff=49834302&oldid=49251690 (Deng 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
Deng was posting about Kurt on Woohookitty's talk as I recall, check there also for info. ~Chris {t|c|e} 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This user is the subject of a request for comment, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kurt Leyman. Petros471 14:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/05&oldid=1137450446"