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

message: *  -- User appeared today and began removing links to material I wrote for think tank where I work, claiming it was original research. Request investigation.  I have edited hundreds of pages and seldom add a link to my own work. Others have added links to my work as well. Not always me. This matter has been through arbitration - I try to follow the guidelines. (My outside world identity is Chip Berlet. I apologize for being a magnet for controversy.// Cberlet 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: Response: Michael Ruppert. Added critical material written by Norman Solomon, stored on publiceye.org with permission of Solomon. see diff: . Other link was to online review of articles by many other authors.--Cberlet 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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: . Survived vote for deletion.--Cberlet 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: you should talk  <-- 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: IP addresses