Wikipedia talk:Congressional staffer edits

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Chris Wilson (1 February 2006). "Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers". NPR. Eli Watkins (19 October 2017). "Capitol Hill is making a mess on Wikipedia". CNN. Retrieved 21 October 2017.

	Lists Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Wikipedia Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Should this page be in the main namespace? Would it not be more appropriately in the Wikipedia: namespace? -- Blorg 10:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this regarding an internal investigation this should be moved. —This user has left wikipedia 17:37 2006-01-30

This should be deleted. It's just one big self reference. Link to the RfC or Wikinews instead of here. — TheKMan^talk 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted? No. Entirely inappropriate. To move it out of the main namespace, however? Should be done, preferably ASAP. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, hopefully correctly. Possibly the redirect should be excised from the main namespace also. -- Blorg 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you thought that the PRC is the only one not happy about Wikipedia... think again... ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh Mib, it's amazing how this all ties in together. Amazing coincidence. ;-) (Guess who started the RFC?)

Be eudaimonic!) 05:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I already knew. ;-) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a wet blanket, but what's to stop those same people from editing out their involvement from this page (using their home, not Congressional, connections)? Maybe this should be semi-protected?

surely not even they would be so dumb as to risk getting caught again? they must know people are watching for it now. i'm sure it's safe as it is :)--Ridethecurve 02:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's preferred we get a response from them. That way, this issue can move along. The RFC is waiting for a response, anyhow.

Be eudaimonic!) 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Somehow I doubt they'd ever get a response. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to user User:TheKMan for his research of Senate, CIA, and Justice Department IP research.

Np =) — TheKMan^talk 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this page was referenced by a front page article on the Washington Post.[1] It specifically mentions the CIA, Justice Department, and the Navy/Marine edits. — TheKMan^talk 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think they used this Wikinews article as a source. There is another article being written by Wikinews right now.

Ah, nice work. Props to Wikinews — TheKMan^talk 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a sharp eye out for inappropriate Congressional staffer edits of articles (esp. their own bio-articles) is important. But we should also be diligent when it comes to the TALK pages as well.

The TALK pages may contain ideas and arguments that deserves to be known - and zealous staffers, or even campaign operatives, may edit or even delete relevant posts of crucial info.

We should examine the editing history of the TALK pages of Congressmen to insure that vital discussions do not get squashed even before they begin.

69.39.172.64 07:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC) I found it odd that I should have to search so hard for the discussion page,(I came here from the only discussion page I have Ever seen empty) never seen the like before on Wikipedia. I always check the discussion page on any article I look up as I have discovered that I can learn so much more from it. I didn't realise you could delete anything, I thought it would always be available at least in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.186.57 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a article about this incident in the main namespace at

Please see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone

Bridgestone tire is editing the Firestone page (Bridgestone bought Firestone in 1988), Bridgestone employees have been deleting out all of the information which is critical of Bridgestone, we just caught them a couple of days ago.

I would like some help and advice on how to procede from those editors and administrators who have been involved with the

How did this story procede?

Who were those who conducted "Further investigation by Wikipedia members"?

Travb (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Check on this guys, very important info[reply]

Humphrey, Tom. "Entries on Wikipedia edited by Davis aide: Press secretary also admits deleting info on brother via federal computer." Knoxville News-Sentinel. August 11, 2007.http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/aug/11/entries-on-wikipedia-edited-bydavis-aide/

Blanking vandalism by Davis' press secreatry Timothy Hill at Wiki articles David Davis (Tennessee politician) and Matthew Hill.

I appears to me (as a relative newbie at the Wikipedia) that a lot of time and effort is consumed to the task of addressing vandalism within articles having a political nature --- perhaps the overall Wikipedia policy should be changed to having both the username and IP numbers displayed to help everyday editors to identify those IP numbers originating from the offices of both government agencies and elected officials.

Likewise, I am also thinking that the Wikipedia board should adopt a decision preventing users from displaying "body count" or "kill count" types of awards/graphics at the User pages --- the goal of creating and editing Wikipedia should focus on the accuracy of referenced Wikipedia content, and not the self-satisifaction due to attainment of an editor's high numbers.Bee Cliff River Slob 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lockyer. Compare the version of his page 10:08, 11 August 2006, to 22:02, 27 August 2006, after revisions by 24.23.24.127. It could just be harmless vandalism, but why get rid of all the bad stuff and only put in flattering stuff? Someone should try tracing 24.23.24.127 to Lockyer's office or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraytram (talk • contribs) 18:27, July 20, 2008