Talk:US Dept. of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • IP address:
  • Reverse DNS:
  • Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
  • ASN: 15130
  • City (per outside source): Washington, District Of Columbia
  • IP address:
  • Reverse DNS:
  • Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
  • ASN: 0
  • ASN Name: IANA-RSVD-0
  • IP range connectivity: 0
  • Registrar (per ASN): Unknown

DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you link those particular diffs? Why not link to the block logs?--SVTCobra 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am just starting this...and have not done everything yet. I will get to that when I can. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] was supposedly blocked for vandalism not POV edits. Please be very careful that you get things right with this article before you publish. Gotta go, be back in an hour or so. --SVTCobra 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikinews is attempting to get a statement from the United States Department of Justice. Please do not publish the article just yet. Thanks, Cirt - (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more info, see DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs). Cirt - (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews requested a statement from the Department of Justice on the edits to Wikipedia, but as of this article's publication had not received a response.

I added the above into the article, pending further info from DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) - if Wikinews gets a response from the Department of Justice, DragonFire1024 can add that in later. Cirt - (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far nothing...not even from communications comm. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Should it not say that is confirmed as belonging to Verizon in Washington DC, instead of the misleading "Wikinews ... has not been able to confirm the address belonged to the Department of Justice."

With 112,500 employees in the DoJ, this seems to be the case of a single employee who made the same edit both from work and from home. However, reading the article in its present form, one gets a distinct impression of a wider conspiracy.

Part of the vandalism perpetrated by were edits to Tracy Jordan, Roger Ebert [4], and James E. Akins [5]. Why is this being ignored with a singular focus on one article about Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

To me this seems to be selective reporting. --SVTCobra 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points you raise. I will add all the above to the article. Cirt - (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Cirt - (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, decidly so. I also like that we now have the "other side" of CAMERA related blocks in the story (something I was unaware of). Thanks, --SVTCobra 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get to read it before hand but it looks good, it sounds like to me like someone at the DOJ is trying to do some censoring, lets just hopme wikipedia dosen't get a request to remove that info from the DOJ, not sure why that would happen but who knows, this all seems like something from a movie, government tries to remove content from wikipedia, hey I could sell the idea to hollywood perhaps? lol --RyanB88 - (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What do you all think about reanming it? I was thinking:

US Department of Justice IP Address blocked following several edits to Wikipedia deemed vandalism

or is that too long?--RyanB88 - (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to US Dept of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia. Cirt - (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, nicley put.--RyanB88 - (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to complain again, but shouldn't it be spelled out? Or have a . (Dept.)? 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cirt - (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing note[edit]

For potential re-use on Wikipedia:

  • I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. (However I would suggest citing the same sources that are listed as sources at the bottom of this article.) -- Cirt - (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I fail to se how any of this would be encyclopedic but it can't hurt to be ready to use this on wikipedia if needed, way to think ahead.--Ryan524 - (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: It's not for Wikipedia articles, but possible use at The Wikipedia Signpost. Cirt - (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks for clairifying,but either way it was a good thought just to be thinking ahead like that. I am lmost woundering why wikinews isn't GFDL too, I thought it was like the official license of the wikimedia foundation or something, lol.--Ryan524 - (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because with CC-BY-2.5 it helps to get the name of Wikinews out there more. Cirt - (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in other sources[edit]

Will start listing stuff below, here. Cirt - (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of Wikinews[edit]


Again ripped off by the Register. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imatation is the sincerest form of flattery.--Ryan524 - (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ;) lol[reply]
Good point. Cirt - (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that submission that made it was shorter, more succinct. Perhaps that's what caught their attention enough so that it got selected. Cirt - (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true because I submitted one that was as long if not longer which got published on slashdot: [7]. See at bottom: Related: firehose submission. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay. I admit I am less schooled in the ways of the Slashdotting.  :) Cirt - (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just thought this was cool: [8]. Seems we inspired PC Pro, in a good way :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite interesting. Cirt - (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]