Wikipedia talk:Congressional staffer edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — TheKMantalk 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I moved it, hopefully correctly. Possibly the redirect should be excised from the main namespace also. -- Blorg 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespace? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Heh Mib, it's amazing how this all ties in together. Amazing coincidence. ;-) (Guess who started the RFC?) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already knew. ;-) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ministry of Truth strikes back! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I doubt they'd ever get a response. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Edits to this page?

message: Thanks to user User:TheKMan for his research of Senate, CIA, and Justice Department IP research.
:Np =) — TheKMantalk 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributor thanks

message: It appears this page was referenced by a front page article on the Washington Post. It specifically mentions the CIA, Justice Department, and the Navy/Marine edits. — TheKMantalk 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, nice work. Props to Wikinews — TheKMantalk 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington Post

message: 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)
thread_title: Editing of TALK Pages

message: I created a article about this incident in the main namespace at Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia--agr 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia 

message: 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 WP:Congressional Staffer Edits, who broke the story?  
How did this story procede? 
Who were those who conducted "Further investigation by Wikipedia members"?
Travb (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new scandal is developing: corporations have been caught editing wikipedia

message: 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)
thread_title: U.S. Representative David Davis (August 2007)