In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC).

This RFC concerns the behavior of editors from the United States Congress

Specific IP Addresses

United States House of Representatives

NOTE: Jon Brandt, spokesman for the Committee on House Administration confirmed House ownership of the IP [1] . —This user has left wikipedia 18:06 2006-01-30

United States Senate

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Description

This RFC is being opened in order to further a centralized discussion concerning actions to be taken against US Congressional staffers and possibly other federal employees who have engaged in unethical and possibly libelous behavior in violation of Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV, WP:CIV). The editors from these IP ranges have been rude, abrasive, immature, and show disregard for Wikipedia policy. The editors have frequently tried to censor the history of elected officials, often replacing community articles with censored biographies despite other users' attempts to dispute these violations. They also violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, by deleting verified reports, while adding flattering things about members of Congress that are unverified.

The offending editors have been blocked. This RFC is needed to gather community comments. It is proposed that a one week block is not enough. The block was lifted January 30, 2006. A new block for additional vandalism was enforced for three hours February 1, 2006 at 14:59.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

A full list of details can be found at Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits.

Key:

G - represents good faith contributors
P - represents POV (point of view) pushers
V - represents vandals

United States Congress

United States House of Representatives

Range: 143.228.0.0/16
This list contains 1 IP that originated from this range. This list is complete.
Range: 143.231.0.0/16
This list contains 1 IP that originated from this range. This list is complete.

United States Senate

Range: 156.33.0.0/16
This list contains the offending users of 175 IPs that originated from this range and edited Wikipedia.

Additional background

The following policy violations are documented:

Continuing Violations

In the article for Congressman Thad McCotter (R-MI) removing references[2] to Tom DeLay:

"In 2005, he has come under srutiny for accepting campaign contributions from embattled former house leader Tom Delay"

This violation occurred 19:39, 31 January 2006.

IP was blocked for 3 hours, see the noticeboard. ~Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 16:53 2006-02-01

In the article for Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) removing references[3] to Tom DeLay:

"Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former majority leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC."

This violation occurred 14:16, 1 February 2006.

In the article for Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) removing references[4] to percentage of vote received in defeat for Governor of California:

"Lungren received 38% of the vote."

This violation occurred 01:05, 2 February 2006.

POV-pushing

The Congressional staffers constantly push their unverified point of view (POV) and have no regard with editing policy.

Marty Meehan

  1. "whitewashing" Marty Meehan
    "Meehan is also known nationally as one of the tobacco industry’s toughest critics" - where is the evidence for this?
  2. Removing legitimate content again.

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

  1. Saying "criticism" of the act is silly

Personal attacks through vandalism

Congressional staffers behind this IP have constantly made personal attacks against other politicians through vandalism.

Douche

  1. Adding Scott McClellan's name as a personal attack

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Vandalism
  4. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point
  5. Wikipedia:Biography
  6. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
  7. Wikipedia:Libel
  8. Wikipedia:Editing policy
  9. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User:MC MasterChef tries to inform the Congressional staffers about policy [5]
  2. User:Ryan Delaney tries to reason with the Congressional staffers not to break the 3RR and why it goes against policy [6]
  3. User:Geo Swan attempts to reason with the staffers about POV-pushing. [7]

There are also attempts to reason with a whole host of IP ranges from the Senate; discussed in talk page. Some diffs as example

  1. [8]

It's also apparent from the talk page that many people from the community are exasperated with the Congressional staffers.

Despite attempts from the community to reason with these users, they have failed to respond. This shows their dissonance and disharmony with the community.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. 68.50.103.212 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!)
  3. Ryan Delaney talk 11:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Geo Swan 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. clearly if we dont punish this, its just going to egg on more public figures to hire PR firms to regularly POV push on WP.  ALKIVAR™ 08:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. agree with ALKIVAR as per above —akghetto talk 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree. Mushroom 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree as well. We need to make every effort to point out these disinformationists, embarrass them and their employers publicly, and point out how terribly wrong their actions are. A side question - How many good edits have come from this IP block? Any? If not, maybe we should block ALL editing from .gov computers for a year or so. Sukiari 09:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget folks like nasa.gov . It's not all evil :-) Kim Bruning 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I found it a bit disconcerting that no evidence that this IP is actually from the House [had] been presented, so I dug it up. This indicates that it's registered to "Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives" in Washington, D.C. and provides a contact of "Joseph Adams". This, however, traces it to New York, not Washington. Anyway, regardless of who is behind this, it's definitely wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'geographic trace' is effectively meaningless. ARIN is authoritative for who the IP block has been assigned to, and ARIN's record says its assigned to the House. Anyone using that network does so only becuase the IT Dept at the House (or whoever they outsource that function to) allows them to. Some of them may or may not be in New York, but even the geobytes site says their info comes from users self-providing the information. Also, I suspect the 'Joe Adams' listed is a different one than the one the WP link refers to. 68.188.220.62 15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first footnote provides an authoritative source confirming ownership. And it's obvious.
  6. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this whole affair is rather sad. —Nightstallion (?) 11:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I concur. A one week block is not sufficient. Forever? While that's a nice, feel good idea, I think in practical terms, they've already got PR Boiler rooms ready with botnets to eventually get around the blocks.
    • Wow, an RFC against the entire US Federal Government? Count me in! What an awesome idea!
    That leaves the question, "How Long Is Long Enough To Make The Point?"
    Seven Years.
    That's the maximum term of anyone whose staffer's are involved, PLUS ONE ( for good measure, I suppose. )
    MikeLieman 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Concur and endorse. — TheKMantalk 12:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Concur. I may not have made many contributions on Wikipedia as I'm a Wikinews admin, but these guys need a long-term ban to make an example of them. According to how this is reported, it is mis-use of Goverment computers, so those involved should be disciplined for that. However, as the case laid out by this page shows, they cannot be trusted, so I'm for a long block. Tough luck for those who have made positive contributions. --Brianmc 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tossing both babies and bathwater is appropriate in this case. I suggest waiting until after the November elections to unblock. Heck, can't these politicos mail stuff to every home in their district for free anyhow? Why do they need to do this? kctipton 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. There should be blocks for this behavior, and nothing we say here can enforce one. I would be shocked if one of the staffers actually responds on this page though. Has anyone informed them that this is ongoing? (ESkog)(Talk) 14:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Wow, an RFC against the entire US Federal Government? Count me in! What an awesome idea! --Cyde Weys 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the legislature anyways... --L33tminion | (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Organized POV pushing, IMO, will be the major threat to Wikipedia in the upcoming decade - much more serious than scalability, server issues, or the threat of litigation. My current experience with this has not been encouraging - blatant POV pushers have been given the run of Wikipedia as long as they are canny enough to not violate specific rules like the 3RR. We need to start treating organized POV pushing at least as seriously as we do blatant vandalism, or Wikipedia will be useless as an information resource. How long before every major corporation has PR agent(s) assigned to Wikipedia editing? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm in favor of banning the entire IP range for both House and Senate for a minimum of seven years. These people's salaries are paid with our tax dollars, and I'm not interested in seeing my money going towards Wikipedia vandalism. If people still want to contribute, they are welcome to do so on their own time, at home, when they're not using government computers. Astarf 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree. --KAMiKAZOW 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This is disheartening, to say the least. Hall Monitor 20:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I agree. We need to nip this in the bud before it goes further. No one should be allowed to make campaigns of disinformation, as this is not at the heart of wikipedia. 30 January 2006
  19. Endorse. There needs to be greater punishment than a 1-week block for those IPs involved in violations. But I also like JeffBurdges's idea below for creating a Congress IP watchlist. --Aaron 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm in! Let's see how it feels for them to be censored by us, for a change ! Elfguy 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse. I can't believe they're doing this to wikipedia. Shows how popular it has become.Matthewvelie 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Concur. Jredwards 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. More and more I wish that wikipedia had signatures like PGP so I could judge the validity of the information I'm receiving. This just shows that political intentions could render wikipedia unreliable as a source of unbiased information. Kitsune818 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. It would seem that anyone who has personal feelings about the entry(minus historians) would be in a conflict of interest if editing such articles. I see no reason why any IP from the U.S. Government ever be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. Amitst 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. I disagree. Their actions will be revealed in the media, and the truth will come out. Blocking them denies them rope they will use to hang themselves. Besides, the activity may be a violation of federal campaign laws, since they are using government resources to promote candidates for office. Let them deal with the FBI. qhist
  26. Endorse Wikipedia has to stand as the one place where fact is not a public relations piece. Congress has not acted in any way different from a vandal; blocking out content, inserting POV, removing issues that may cause a black eye, etc. Information demands to be free --Larsinio 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Endorse - 1 week is not long enough, but I feel a perma-ban is overkill. I like the suggestion about creating an IP Watchlist for the government in addition to whatever ban-length comes out of this. --Cybersavior 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Wikipedia is not intended for furthering crass political causes. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Endorse. It's a serious threat to Wikipedias goals to provide free and accurate information. Cuecla > Talk 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Endorse. Congress has no rights to modify this information. --MichaelKing 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Endorse - I suggest keeping a list of IPs and a list of pages in which vandalism is likely, and let users use that page to easier find vandalism and malicious edits. Or perhaps a page showing edits from the currently banned list of IPs. DrIdiot 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Endorse. If Congress has so much time that they can surf, edit, delete, or otherwise modify community contributed content, then they should have no problem editing, deleting, or modifying poilcy such as the Patriot Act. In this manner, our tax dollars would be better served, instead of wasted in the pursuit of vanity issues. --Rivenwind
  33. Endorse. I don't want politicians trying to use an encyclopedia to try to spin things in their favor. That's what Fox News Channel is for. --Thephotoman 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Endorse. Block for a period of time not less than 1 month, up to a maximum of four months, plus probationary monitoring through the November elections. Jjk 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Endorse.- Lets protect Wikipedia integrity. Andy 22:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Endorse. Anything I could add has already been said better. --coldacid 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Endorse - Perhaps Government IP's should be restricted from editing certain articles, at least those in the Politics catagory. Bmgoau 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Endorse concur with previously stated reasons. Frogular 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. We need to start calling the Congressmen's offices and ask them to stop "Vandalizing the Internet." Be quick, frank, and give your name/address. Tell them "I'm blogging this!" aphor 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Endorse - agree with Bmgoau's idea. Tjic 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Endorse per above. Itamae 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Endorse clearly biased and unprofessional Tkessler 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Endorse As per above. This is insane, my tax dollars at work indeed! Kingfox 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Endorse with much the same reasoning as those above. jacksonj04 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Endorse per above. Jokestress 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Endorse per above. Wikipedia is not to be taken advantage of.
  47. Endorse Agree with above stop wasting tax dollars and spending time on wiki when you should be doing it on your own time. SirGrant 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Endorse. Hopefully banning Congressional IPs will send a message. I doubt it's a permanent solution, but it's a decent first step for the time being and it should send a message to the politcians that Wikipedia is NOT their playground. Tomunist 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Endorse These people have no respect for the guidelines and procedures of our community that are there to protect the truth and innocent. They wish to judge themselves instead of being judged by those who elected them. This is a heinous crime, even for me as a non-US citizen. Freedom of speech is something that I respect the US and Wikipedia for. Greg Robson 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Endorse Wikipedia isn't a playground for politicans to push propaganda. --SirNuke 22:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. How utterly irresponsible. They should have a third party investigation. Despicable. KI 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. These people don't have the basic ethics to adhere to society principles. For them, their corruption starts right at home. I 101% endorse this reaction to their wrongdoings.
  53. Endorse. This isn't the place for that. Politicians can have their PR blurbs on their own websites. Christy747 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Endorse. The attitude and action presented are unacceptable, seeing it done -organized and coordinated- by congressional staffers is outrageous. --tickle me 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Endorse. Sadly, this was bound to happen. Bill Curnow 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Agree. IMHO, fork the sections on US Government: one area for "legitimate freethinking discourse", another for "self-serving press releases". Leave the latter unmoderated; over time, the divergence will serve to illustrate the point. 66.241.84.143 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Endorse. A reasonable length of time might be set at one tenth of the current length of copyright protection. Richard 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Endorse. I especially agree about the threat of organized misinformation. There must be some sort of system we can used to oppose that threat. -ZendarPC 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Endorse. It is disturbing the lengths that the agents of elected leaders have interfered with open public discussion regarding their effectivness. A long(er) term block is need. Until after midterm elections is the shortest ban that should be considered (Congress goes into session on Jan 3 2007). kurtm3 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Endorse per above 80.100.30.125 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Endorse as per above. Sdalmonte 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Endorse. As an American taxpayer I view these people as persons who I have paid to do a job. I pay my taxes which, in part, fund these people to run the country's business. Surfing the net and editing Wikipedia articles is not appropriate work to be done on the tax payers dime. All Americans are paying Congress and the support employees to do work. I think that American Wikipedians have a responsibility to enforce that return on our investment, much like a very large board of directors. Editing Wikipedia articles is not appropriate for work unless your work is to do that. I didn't elect my representatives to office so that I could pay them and their aides to edit their own biographies. — Mperry 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)— Mperry 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Endorse Welcome to TRUE Freedom of information! Propaganda will NOT be tolerated! Fosnez 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Endorse So sad.--Abg 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Endorse. Amazed it took this long... Deal with it now or else... L3on 00:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Endorse Heartily! --Dogbreathcanada 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Endorse Perhaps a tag on a politicians page that expands to "Supporters of this Politician have repeatedly vandalised this page and are blocked from changing it."...and another that starts "Opponents of this..." - that way people reading the article will know that it's not safe information. Leave the tag there until the page goes unmolested for (say) 6 months. SteveBaker 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Endorse Don't these elected officials have jobs they're supposed to be doing? Aren't their staffers supposed to be busy helping with said jobs? This is a waste of everyone's time, and it constitutes a serious danger to the freedom and veracity of Wikipedia. Please keep politicians out. Chandra Page 00:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Endorse Wikipedia is not a beauty contest. Cwolfsheep 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Endorse I wonder if it is possible to obtain the names of vandals who are assigned these congressional IP addresses through the Freedom of Information Act (United States)?
  71. Endorse I hope the staff responsable for this are found and listed. --GinsuGuy585
  72. Endorse --FyreFiend 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Endorse Suppafly 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strongly Endorse While 'censorship' is too strong a word for this, it's certainly disquieting and disturbing. --DolphinCompSci 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Endorse This is unacceptable action from our government. 65.172.181.6 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Endorse As with every new technology, people have to learn how to handle it ethically. -- Peak Freak 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Endorse per ALKIVAR, way up at #1. --^demonYo 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Endorse I endorse this summary on the grounds that there is undeniable evidence (in a rather overwhelming amount) regarding the misbehavior of these individuals. Although a ban would probably be the wrong way to go about these things, they deserve whatever they get. Dtrinh 02:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Endorse Overwhelming evidence. huwr 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Endorse and humiliate them in the media. Let's get this into the New York Times. With the recent Wikipedia press problems, it'd be nice to make this blow up in their faces. Rob 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Endorse. This is an unbelievable breach of ethics. Wikipedia, to much of the Internet, is authoritative and consultable. Its articles tend towards completeness and a neutral point of view which strives to inform readers of the complete facts surrounding an issue without cluttering them up and obscuring them behind ambiguity and omission. The government of the United States of America has many times before overstepped its bounds, believing that it can rewrite history and wipe clean bloody and scarred slates. This is a line that we must draw. The government cannot be allowed to talk about itself as a historical authority without any regard to the consensual process by which we Wikipedians build our repository of knowledge. The time to stop this nonsense and foolishness on the part of our elected representatives and the people who serve them is now. We cannot allow those who write the law to place themselves above it, allowing the mouse and keyboard to replace common sense and the law of the land. Let us therefore make this cleansing action which removes the bad and purifies the unclean permanent, and eject from this assembly the subjective and opinionated government and its many tongues. - CorbinSimpson 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Endorse. Wikipedia isn't a campaigning center. GeminiDomino 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Endorse Commander Nemet 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Endorse --Vironex Vandals need to be banned, regardless of who it is.
  85. Endorse. Thanks, Congress, for spending time screwing off on Wikipedia instead of doing things that are important. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Endorse. And I am afraid to say that more drastic actions is necessary.A formal press release by the foundation is a must as this appears to be systematic. A formal complaint and legal actions.. oh well...Just hope "Wikimedia Foundation v. United States" will not happen. SYSS Mouse 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Endorse - agree with Alkivar's comments. Alex.tan 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Endorse - Allowing them to continuously remove remarks that are against their view, and change the public record is wrong and should be stopped. The Decryptor 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Endorse - Csarge AYJ/KANATA , ONT 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Endorse - The whole project is doomed to failure unless this issue is resolved quickly and decisively. Josh Kagan 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Endorse, Alkivar is right. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Endorse, I like the idea of blocking the IPs for seven years. This needs to stop here. Natedubya 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Endorse, Inappropriate. sokweman 08:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Endorse - Wholly inappropriate, and starting down a very slippery slope. Alex Ravenel 10:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Endorse - *drew 11:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Endorse - Enfors 12:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Endorse - Otto ter Haar 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Endorse with comment - It is unfortunate that politics must get in the way of getting accurate, unbiased information. I'm glad that Wikipedia is taking a stand against this form of vandelism. While I endorse this blocking, I'm not sure how much it will do to curb this problem. These representatives or anyone in politics can easy pay someone to make the changes. I'm afraid blocking the congretional IP address will only make things more difficult to edit. Purhaps that's the point. But all it takes is a VPN or even VNC installed on a remote computer to make changes. I disagree with some here. I believe Congress has just as much a right to edit articles as anyone here. (Otherwise, aren't we saying that information is only for those not in government?) Congretional aids can provide good information, and should provide information the public may not have ready-access to. However, like all users, this MUST be done fairly, unbiasly, justly. Punishment is necessary. I don't think we should block all government IP's. To do so would be irresponsible. sohmc 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Endorse - though this may be a bit heavy handed, I don't see politicans not trying this whole thing again at some other point in Wikipedia's history.
  100. Endorse Ebelular 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Endorse --Mike 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree as demonstrated further down the page there have been valuble contributions from this IP, and there's no evidence that a block will stop people from editing via other IP's. Much better would be a simple permanent sign that it has been messed around with. 81.105.192.22 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Sri Theo[reply]
    • This is an RFC, not a poll, 81.105.192.22. If you don't agree with a view, don't sign your name under it to endorse it. If you have a different outside view, create your own subsection. Uncle G 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Endorse, but something like JeffBurdges idea needs to be undertaken also. Discordance 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Endorse - I shouldn't but I find this surprising. Do they really have that much time on our cash to mess around on Wikipedia? Pan 20:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Endorse - We should definitley permablock all government IPs. But isn't it pretty easy to just grab a public computer and do the same damage? I think that government employees are too close to the government to writte accurate, neutral articles. 69.19.14.23 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Endorse JereKrischel 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. 64.82.252.17 04:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Endorse nihilism 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Endorse codepoet 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Endorse - However, it is unlikely you will dissaude for long those who are determined to edit articles in their favor so long as they can remain anonymous and go virtually unpunished. Above and beyond IP blocks. Public shame is not much punishment in light of the public's short attention spans, especially when oppenents of articles could bias an article in the positive regard hoping for Wikipedia to overreact and label it as biased. More likely if you could determine a way to extract escalting financial penalties from users (deemed by the community to be abusive) it would discourage long term organized abuse. Since the correction of baised attacks articles does require time and effort, I don't think it's unreasonable to require a financial donation from abusers. Most people think with their pocketbook, and until you threaten them there, they don't really take you seriously.
  110. endorse - ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Endorse. This is a really childish game beetween politicans. --192.35.241.134 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I have forgotten to sign in. --NewAtair [[User Talk:NewAtair|Δ]] 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Endorse. It's incredible that members of the government would attempt to interfere with a non-profit organization. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Endorse. Speaking as a non-US citizen, it is actions like these that further ruins the credibility of the United States Federal Government in general in front of the international community. Especially its supposed "position" regarding "freedom" -Lemi4 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Endorse. Q: What kind of spineless and utterly malicious person would try to alter the greatest source of knowledge on the internet with disinformation for their own benifit? A: U.S. Government officials. There needs to be a ban or some sort of action taken against those involved and preventative measures so this doesn't happen in the future. To me, our leaders have sank to a new level. Zeak Harbors 00:58 3 Febuary 2006
  115. Endorse. This is just sickening. Archer7 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Endorse 196.1.53.7 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Endorse 65.145.117.127 12:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Endorse. These people are giving America a bad name. Congress should spend their time dealing with Hurricane Katrina, or the War on Terror instead. SYCTHOStalk 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Endorse. Sempf 03:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Endorse. Actions taken here are less severe than what would happen to an institution vandalizing US Senate owned pages. l1wulf 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Endorse. Durova 18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Endorse. --Malthusian (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Endorse - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Endorse We cannot let Wikipedia be subject to the same political/corporate control that other forms of 'the press' are subject to. This violates not only WP policies but the spirit of the Bill of Rights. The parties involved should be strongly warned, blocked, or whatever is required to make them stop perpetuating POV edits. They should also frankly, be ashamed of their actions and owe an apology. Pedant 18:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Endorse -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 10:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Endorse. While I do not like what some of these staffers have done; what annoys me more is that my tax dollars is paying for this. Y'all should be focused on my safety and security, not padding your boses' ego's and bios on Wikipedia. Go back to doing what you are supposed to do: serve you constituients, serve your country. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who oppose this summary

  1. Oppose All points of view should be allowed. --Masssiveego 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Congressman Meehan response

Congressman Marty Meehan has responded to the January 27 2006, the Lowell Sun of Massachusetts article [9]:

Yesterday's story, "Rewriting history under the dome," accurately reported that in July of 2005 an intern in my office responsible for updating my biography also updated my online Wikipedia entry. I did not know that this change was being made at the time and was only made aware of it yesterday when informed that The Sun had inquired about it. Though the actual time spent on this issue amounted to 11 minutes, according to server logs, I do not consider it time well spent or approve of it in any way.
Part of being an elected official is to be regularly commented on, praised, and criticized on the Web. For example, one of the many anonymous users who have edited my own Wikipedia entry also updated Sen. Tom Daschle's entry by adding that Daschle is a "professional hack" and that "his brain was significantly altered" after his office was targeted by terrorists in the anthrax attacks on the Capitol in 2001. This is a predictable and unavoidable part of being in public life and, tempting as it may be to get involved, we should not. The Internet is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. It was a waste of energy and an error in judgment on the part of my staff to have allowed any time to be spent on updating my Wikipedia entry. I thank The Sun for bringing it to my attention.'
MARTY MEEHAN U.S. Representative

Steve Rothman's Intern

As an intern at the office of Steve Rothman, I can testify that I was blocked from editing from work while the blocks were active. This is outside of DC, at Rothman's local office in Hackensack, NJ. Thus, blocking the IP probably blocked the entire House network. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside views[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

McClenon

The only reason why I have not endorsed the above summary is that I have not done the research to verify that all of the allegations are correct. I can see that there is a pattern of misuse of Wikipedia. The originators of the RfC have, unfortunately, made a number of specific allegations that they have not backed up by diffs. There are enough diffs so that I agree that there is blatant POV-pushing and bad faith editing.

By the way, the ARIN lookup is authoritative. If some other lookup disagrees with it, the other lookup is mistaken. However, I assume that the POC is a different Joseph Adams.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merecat 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMgoau

Government IP's should be restricted from editing certain articles, at least those in the Politics catagory.

Restriction may come in the form of the need for registration before contributing, or being banned from editing political category articles (contributions can be made through reference in the talk page of an article). The effect of this will to be allow Government employees to still contribute to wikipedia while also limiting any negative effects of their editing.

Comments moved to talk page.

JeffBurdges

Eloquence has given powerful arguments against permanent bans on wikinews [10] and the same reasoning applies to organizations. A more effective "punishment" would be to permenently retain, on the relevant talk pages, notices of past attacks by congressional staffers.

Watchlist functionality could also be enhanced to allow watching of users, IP ranges, and collaborative lists of such (see talk). For example, IP addresses and registered users affiliated to the U.S. Congress could be added to "Watchlist:U.S. Congress". Users could view the combined contributions history from this page, or watch all edits by all listed IP address ranges and users by adding this page to their watchlist.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Update: I've added a refined version of the technical side of this proposal here. JeffBurdges 16:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DrWitty

I believe that the following belongs in the Response section, which permits a comment "by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete." If members agree, feel free to move the content.

This dispute is unjustified and the complaint is biased because it implicates the entire staff of the United States Congress in a violation of Wikipedia policies that is miniscule in comparison to the asserted scope. The RFC proposes to block/ban 3 Class B IP address ranges, totaling over 195,000 IP addresses, and cites as support the actions of users posting from 11 IP addresses over a time period that apparently reaches back to November 2004, 14 months ago. If the reader takes to the time to parse the support material, they will discover that the RFC admits that 9 IPs have only posted legitimate content, and that 4 IPs are "Legit, sort of" or the equivalent.
Banning 195,000 possible IP addresses for indeterminate but lengthy time periods (>1 week) violates established Wikipedia policy regarding range blocking in the Blocking Policy. In addition, even if we do not reach the issue of the proxy/aggregator identified by 143.231.249.141, the User Conduct RFC process that the community has selected requires a complaint against an individual user. The summary suggests, but does not demonstrate, that the conduct originating from 11 IP addresses justifies the blocking/banning of an address space more than 17000 times the size of the documented problem, with no suggestion that users are IP hopping to avoid individual IP blocks/bans. This is a policy question, not a user conduct question. It belongs in the Village pump.


I disavow the the following paragraphs, but I will not delete them in view of the list of endorsements. Because of an editorial dispute the comment does not serve the purpose that I intended it to. DrWitty 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this page attempts to discuss an important issue, however Wikipedia cannot violate its own policies in attempts to solve problems caused by individuals that violate Wikipedia policies. This RFC is in blatant violation of the policies that apply to User Conduct RFCs. Most notably, this RFC admits that there are issues with multiple IPs and multiple, if unknown, Congressional staffers. This RFC "must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Three blocks of IP addresses, including an IP address that may be a proxy, and the near certainty of there being multiple users (e.g., the legit edits from U.S. Senate IPs) clearly places this problem outside of the scope of the User Conduct RFC process.

It is not Wikipedia's place to decide whether or not employees of the U.S. government should edit Wikipedia content. It is a futile attempt to regulate an editorial problem based upon the putative origin of the traffic, which as we all know could easily shift to Starbucks and McDonalds Wi-Fi points in Washington D.C., as well as home offices, campaign offices, election consultants' offices, etc. Those who say that it is "tough luck" for those who are making legitimate contributions will not be so pleased when every Time Warner cable internet subscriber in Kansas City receives a long term ban because a church with a religious agenda begins to abuse Wikipedia entries in the name of some cause. The willingness of many of the endorsers to ban all Congressional IP addresses for the next seven years represents a serious erosion of the Wikipedia ethos. Like it or not, because the service is becoming increasingly visible and well known, Wikipedia is either going to have to resist the partisan (in the broad sense) contributions to the work on an individual basis, or it is going to have to sacrifice its soul. Wikipedia:Introduction

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

STrRedWolf -- Moderation of Congressional IP addresses

In many forms of medium, a third party review of content submitted has proven fruitfull. It filters out the spam from the ham, the wheat from the chaff -- or in this case, the facts from the political spew. For example:

I do not know if a Watchlist will allow the an entry's edit to be held until approved. I welcome the clarification if it does. However, it is becomming more and more evident that Wikipedia would need moderators for clients which constantly violate the rules. 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that these "incidents" reveal a flaw in Policy and Procedure, and that changing Policy is needed not only to resolve these issues in this case, but to try to prevent such things happening again. There are plenty of Governments and Organisations that would love to see substantial revisionist edits across Wikipedia. I believe that the policies as they stand at the moment make assumptions about the fundamental goodness of people. There will of course alwys be some people who have malicious intent, but they will be the exceptions IMHO. Organisations however will always tend to whatever is in the benefit of the organisation (IMHO), regardless of the feelings or inclinations of the individuals concerned. Policy does not adequately address violations by organisations or "agents" at this time. I'll go so far as to suggest that what we're seeing is exactly what Plato was suggesting when he ripped into Democracy in Republic, and in order to preserve and monitor the "goodness" of the Wikipedia knowledge/community a similar benevalent dictatorship is called for, much as it would have help saved Athens from Sparta - note the parallel is extremely strong, where we replace "Sparta" with "House Staffers". Johnpf 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

Michael Snow

I would take some of the reasoning from Eloquence, cited above, a step further. Contrary to some of the overheated rhetoric being bandied about, a one-week block was way too long. This should not be about punishing anyone; the only issue should be how to improve Wikipedia articles and/or prevent harm to them. Here we clearly have more than one person using this IP address, and valuable contributions being made from it, unfortunately tarnished by some edits that appear to be vandalism. Since I unblocked it yesterday, someone using it has already corrected two outright errors on Wikipedia articles about members of Congress, mistakes we as editors should be embarrassed about. Do we seriously want to forego these contributions?

Most congressional staffers are intelligent people who are perfectly capable of making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. If we assumed good faith about them, as we do for other contributors, and tried to understand any concerns they have about Wikipedia articles, this wouldn't even be an issue. Monitoring for and reverting instances of actual vandalism is easy enough here. More important is helping these people learn how to contribute to Wikipedia more effectively, but still in an appropriate manner.

Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

Anti-vandalism tools

We already have mechanisms in place to detect suspect edits. It would be almost trivial to modify CDVF, and the current bot run by the wikipedia anti vandalism unit to mark all congressional edits as suspect and track them. Also, perhaps roomba can be modified to also spot congressional edits. This is no different from watching AOL or (previously) tor, really. It's just kind of ironic that this time it's the leaders of the free world we need to watch.

Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

Dragon695 - John Seigenthaler Sr. Standard

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, you can find out my bias on my userpage. That being said, I recall that when the Seigenthaler hullbaloo happened there was an outcry from the Wikipedia community asking why couldn't he just correct the misinformation rather then go on a crusade? Well, it seems to me that is what some of these people are trying to do, even if they are acting in bad faith. I see absolutely no reason to treat them any better or any worse then any other anonymous contributor with a POV. I vehemently disagree that their edits should be marked as suspect. They should have just as much freedom to contribute as anyone else does. Handle each ip on a case-by-case basis in the same way as any other anonymous user. Where proxies are concerned, follow the same policies as we do with AOL users.

Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

The established conduct methods have not been used

Both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies which, so far as I can see, have not yet been used in an attempt to resolve this matter. Those bodies can also link IPs to offices and perhaps individuals as part of their investigations. Since we have not yet used the usual ethics process, I suggest that no long-lasting action is taken until the matter has been referred to the House ethics committee and Senate ethics committee so they can remind members and their staff about proper conduct. Jamesday 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting: "The established conduct methods have not been used"

Some of these comments originally posted under "The established conduct methods have not been used" heading

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

More