Wikipedia Blocks 'Disruptive' Edits From US Congress

Yeah, "disruptive" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 03:45 · Score: 5, Funny

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."

His unmasking isn't supposed to happen for another 20 years, now our plan is shot to hell.

Damn meddling kids mumble mumble...

Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by jehan60188 · 2014-07-25 03:49 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2014-07-25 04:04 · Score: 4, Funny

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies." [1]
Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by Minwee · 2014-07-25 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."
Why won't Donald Rumsfeld deny these allegations? We're not saying he is an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies -- In fact, we think he isn't! But I can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations, why won't he deny that he is an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies?
Hey, I'm just asking questions.
Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by ganjadude · 2014-07-25 08:27 · Score: 1

wikipedia

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by LifesABeach · 2014-07-25 09:14 · Score: 1

Could this be the Tea Party solution to the "Border" issue?
Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by LifesABeach · 2014-07-25 09:15 · Score: 1

From Donald's perspective, "is this horrible?"
Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by WindBourne · 2014-07-25 11:04 · Score: 1

wikipedia
No, congress.
And they would know and never lie to us. Would they?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

I take offense! by timrod · 2014-07-25 03:46 · Score: 5, Funny

I take offense to the idea that Donald Rumsfeld is some kind of racist who only eats Mexican babies. Donald Rumsfeld isn't a racist - he eats babies of all races equally, without taking the color of their skin or their nationality into consideration. Have a little respect for the man!

Re:I take offense! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 03:53 · Score: 4, Funny

But to be fair... the babies are skinned before they arrive on a golden platter for him to devour.
Re:I take offense! by Calavar · 2014-07-25 04:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sure, these edits were mostly harmless, but @CongressEdits is still a great idea because it dissuades politicians from ordering their staff to make edits that could be misleading. I, for one, would love to see an @HeartlandInstituteEdits.
Re:I take offense! by Sockatume · 2014-07-25 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny

I think that these stereotypes about alien lizards are getting out of hand. All we ever hear about is the baby-eating, and never the fine and nuanced cuisine that goes into it.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:I take offense! by Charliemopps · 2014-07-25 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

All joking aside... Donald Rumsfeld is 82.
He's about as open minded as most other 82yr olds in this country.
Our problem is that Donald Rumsfeld is a bad guy. Or problem is we put people into positions of power who developed their sense of morality at a time when "The Nazis" were still a valid political party and we didn't generally allow African Americans into the military yet.
Re:I take offense! by idontgno · 2014-07-25 04:55 · Score: 1

I mean, there's a very comprehensive cookbook about it!

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:I take offense! by operagost · 2014-07-25 05:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson. They also like to pretend that the Nazi party was ever a legitimate party in the USA, when it's the ever-enlightended Europeans and progressive darlings like George Bernard Shaw who liked both the Nazi party and Stalin.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:I take offense! by morgauxo · 2014-07-25 05:10 · Score: 1

I hope they have the same for the executive branch!
Re:I take offense! by Overzeetop · 2014-07-25 05:12 · Score: 1

But to be fair... the babies are skinned alive before they arrive on a golden platter for him to devour.
FTFY

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re: I take offense! by RobotRunAmok · 2014-07-25 05:15 · Score: 1

Our problem is that we have given a generation of attention-deficient gadgeteers who think that a reader-edited encyclopedia was a good idea public forums to spew their gerontophobic bias.
Re:I take offense! by blackraven14250 · 2014-07-25 05:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson.
Our third problem is that plenty of people think it's cool to blame it all on a particular president of a political leaning they do not agree with, even though the US has had African Americans in the military in their own segregated units at least as early as the Revolutionary War.
Re:I take offense! by plover · 2014-07-25 05:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Have a little respect for the man!
I already have about as little respect for the man as I possibly can! How much less do I need to qualify under your guidelines?
Or is that an unknown unknown?

--
John
Re:I take offense! by PIBM · 2014-07-25 05:32 · Score: 1

That filter might be a little too restrictive; you'd only see your own edits.
Re:I take offense! by mrzaph0d · 2014-07-25 05:42 · Score: 1

...without taking the color of their skin or their nationality into consideration...

I think that's only because his species are color blind.

--
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
Re:I take offense! by nospam007 · 2014-07-25 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

"That filter might be a little too restrictive; you'd only see your own edits."
That's how Republicans like it.
Re:I take offense! by dargaud · 2014-07-25 06:06 · Score: 1

You are right. Why isn't there a customary retirement age for politicians ?!? WHY ?
It's there for ALL other professions, at least in my country.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Re:I take offense! by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-07-25 06:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or problem is we put people into positions of power who developed their sense of morality at a time when "The Nazis" were still a valid political party and we didn't generally allow African Americans into the military yet.
And in 50 years, we'll be putting people into positions of power who believe something that is a very fashionable idea in 2014. No idea what it will be, but since we pick our leadership from among the elderly, and develop our ideas of what's good, right and proper during our youth, it's inevitable.
Note also, for reference, the "Buffalo Soldiers". They were around from the end of the Civil War (formed in 1866). There were Negro regiments during the Civil War as well.
It should be noted also that the 9th and 10th Cavalry, as well as other Negro regiments existed through WW2 until the military was integrated during the Korean War (considerably before the rest of US society).

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:I take offense! by digsbo · 2014-07-25 06:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Because eventually it becomes self-correcting.
Re:I take offense! by angel'o'sphere · 2014-07-25 06:36 · Score: 2

WTF but the crispy skin is the best!
What a waste!

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:I take offense! by Rakarra · 2014-07-25 06:41 · Score: 2

Look, no one said that Rumsfeld won't eat non-Mexican babies, but everyone knows that Mexican babies are the most delicious ones. That's not racist, that's just being a gourmand, and it's a taste he probably picked up eating at the finer restaurants on the beltway with lobbyists.
Re:I take offense! by Nemyst · 2014-07-25 07:21 · Score: 1

It's a great idea until they smarten up a bit and get some external people (hello Mechanical Turk!) to do the edits instead. Fortunately, that leaves us a solid decade or two.
Re:I take offense! by LifesABeach · 2014-07-25 09:17 · Score: 1

Considering that Donald is an Alien, then he should be able to show an Visa Permit to stay on this planet; I think we should "fly" him back...
Re:I take offense! by Reziac · 2014-07-26 04:29 · Score: 1

It should also be noted that this same military, which integrated early, is also one of the most conservative elements of society. Which should inform some folks, but probably won't.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:I take offense! by rjstegbauer · 2014-07-29 07:41 · Score: 1

...or when Nixon did the same thing with tapes...but didn't realize that there would be a gap. LOL
Those were the good ole days!
Randy -- thosewerethegoodoledays

I see the error by satan666 · 2014-07-25 03:47 · Score: 2

In the case of Donald Rumsfeld, it should say: "Evil, alien lizard who eats Mexican babies and puppies."

If anybody cares by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 03:49 · Score: 5, Informative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:143.231.249.138

Citation needed? by aicrules · 2014-07-25 03:53 · Score: 4, Funny

I assume this means they're certain he is NOT an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies? I mean, it does seem pretty unlikely, but we should at least check into it.

Re:Citation needed? by some+old+guy · 2014-07-25 03:55 · Score: 1

Correct. He is proud American domestic lizard who eats Mexican babies. Sorry about the mistake.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Re:Citation needed? by cdrudge · 2014-07-25 03:56 · Score: 1

Exactly. Just tag it with [Citation Needed] and let people know that there's a chance he might not be.
Re: Citation needed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 03:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Well Louis C.K. Asked him just that back in 2011, and instead of a simple yes or no answer he dodged the question. Now, I'm not saying he's not not a lizard person, but if he wasn't not not a lizard person I wouldn't think a simple not-yes wouldn't not suffice.
Re: Citation needed? by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-25 04:01 · Score: 1

A simple not-yes would not not suffice?

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Citation needed? by fustakrakich · 2014-07-25 04:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, if he is an alien, let's make sure he doesn't overstay his visa.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Citation needed? by Primate+Pete · 2014-07-25 04:15 · Score: 1

Sorry, that would be disqualified as "original research."
Re: Citation needed? by jones_supa · 2014-07-25 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny

The truth is the opposite of that it would be wrong to say that it isn't true that I'm not uncomfortable processing that sentence in my brain.
Re:Citation needed? by mu51c10rd · 2014-07-25 05:42 · Score: 1

No no...he is a proud domestic lizard who only eats domestic babies...
Re:Citation needed? by wbr1 · 2014-07-25 06:16 · Score: 1

Now that it is mentioned here, slashdot can be cited as the reference for his culinary proclivities. Problem solved. Put the edit back with a citation.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re: Citation needed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 06:53 · Score: 1

Not every question is answerable by a simple not-yes. As you might know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.
Re:Citation needed? by s.petry · 2014-07-25 06:57 · Score: 1

Descartes primary body of work proves how wrong you are. Lacking physical evidence does not imply that something is impossible to prove, just that you can not prove something absolutely without physical evidence.
Given the political history of the person TFA is discussing (Franklin Coverup amongst numerous scandals), I think there is enough to question whether or not he is at a minimum a pedophile worthy of being labelled an "alien reptilian baby eater".

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Citation needed? by msobkow · 2014-07-25 12:07 · Score: 2

I suggest an autopsy to determine the truth. :P

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by jellomizer · 2014-07-25 03:53 · Score: 1

I hope this is coming from some over zealot unpaid interns, working for the congress. Not from the actual congressmen themselves.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 04:09 · Score: 1

This isn't that different than the kind of stuff you would hear when Robert Byrd would start filibustering. He wasn't so big into the 'space-lizard' conspiracy, but he would gladly go so far off-topic that a GPS couldn't find a route back to whatever vote was scheduled to happen.
Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by oodaloop · 2014-07-25 04:09 · Score: 2

Surely the number of congressmen computer literate enough to edit Wikipedia unassisted would be small enough to check by name.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by aardvarkjoe · 2014-07-25 04:35 · Score: 2

I hope this is coming from some over zealot unpaid interns, working for the congress. Not from the actual congressmen themselves.
I hope this is coming from the congressmen themselves. They're much less likely to cause damage trolling Wikipedia rather than if they're attempting to pass legislation.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by WaffleMonster · 2014-07-25 05:35 · Score: 1

Bahahahahahhaa.... lol... like actual Congress-people would know how to edit wiki pages.
They obviously don't.. hence need for bracketbot to clean up their mess.
Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2014-07-25 07:57 · Score: 1

Given the scope of some of the edits...
Probably a lot of bored congressional staffers. One of my favorite edits was this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
However, other topics of interest have been Wendy's, Choco Taco, the current home town of Orly Taitz, a rant about gender identity on both the GID and Mediate pages(I'm in agreement with this anonymous person here), various pot shots at conspiracy nut bags...
There's a LOT of white washing going on here, don't get me wrong, but it's being buried under a lot of noise of bored staffers.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by ganjadude · 2014-07-25 08:43 · Score: 2

yeah, he must have been having flashbacks of being the grand wizard of the KKK, he wasnt about space lizards, but he did go by the name grand dragon!

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by penix1 · 2014-07-25 12:07 · Score: 1

There is a far, far easier way assuming the government really wanted to get the individual who did this.
All federal internet traffic goes through Mount Weather, VA in the East (Denton, TX in the west). Every activity done right down to mouse clicks and keyboard keystrokes are recorded with no expectation of "privacy". It is in fact a part of the agreement you sign every time you take the required network security training every year. So finding out who was accessing Wikipedia at the time of the edits becomes extremely easy.
I know this because I have had access to the federal systems for years. It is a job requirement. I do GIS (among other things) and every time I send a map across the federal network I get a call from someone out of Mt. Weather asking what it is and why I am sending it. So yes, they can identify, by user, who is doing what.

--
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.

Congress? Disruptive? by PvtVoid · 2014-07-25 03:56 · Score: 2

Now if we could only block all of the other disruptive behavior from Congress.

Fuck, with this bunch of chuckleheads, we can't even get roads and bridges maintained.

Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by wisnoskij · 2014-07-25 04:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Looking into this, this ip address has been vandalising Wikipedia for over 4 years now...

Wikipedia does not ban people who repeatedly vandalise their site, over a period of years?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-07-25 04:22 · Score: 1

Looking into this, this ip address has been vandalising Wikipedia for over 4 years now...
C'mon, we're working hard enough to undo the "an IP address is a person" myth, to keep the government from smashing people who have shared wifi/tor exits/etc., without perpetuating it ourselves.
You'll notice a few helpful edits from staffers too - only most of them on Capitol Hill are psychopaths, not all of them. Probably the good editors already have accounts, though.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by jones_supa · 2014-07-25 04:35 · Score: 1

Wikipedia does not ban people who repeatedly vandalise their site, over a period of years?
The other editors get so much sadistic pleasure of continuing writing the "I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions" notes that they do not want to completely ban an user.
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by wbr1 · 2014-07-25 06:18 · Score: 2

That IP had been vandalizing for years. That IP is not a person. Period.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by Minwee · 2014-07-25 08:31 · Score: 1

Wikipedia does ban. The IP has been banned for 10 days. RTFS.
So, based on past performance, the stream of edits should resume in about a week followed by another ten day ban in August of 2018 if the disruptive behaviour continues?
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by ganjadude · 2014-07-25 08:49 · Score: 1

really? so If I lend my car to a friend and he commits a crime that I am unaware of, I am liable in your world???

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by AK+Marc · 2014-07-25 13:03 · Score: 1

So a person didn't make the edits because the IP did it?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by John.Banister · 2014-07-25 14:51 · Score: 1

That IP is not a person. Period.
That IP is not a person. Yet. Give the Supreme Court a little time, would you. They'll have IP's making unlimited campaign contributions before you know it.
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by wbr1 · 2014-07-27 13:14 · Score: 1

A person made the edits. However,if you ban the IP or IP range, then you ban innocent bystanders. This is unacceptable. Period.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by AK+Marc · 2014-07-27 17:06 · Score: 1

No, you ban no "innocent" people. You ban an IP. The IP isn't the person, remember? They can edit from home, or get a login and keep editing all they want. The IP offended, so the IP is banned.

No innocent IP was harmed in the making of this message.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by wbr1 · 2014-07-28 13:13 · Score: 1

Do not confuse my statement. I never said the IP is a person. I said banning it affects multiple people including innocent bystanders. A crowd is not a person. Do we bomb a crowd because a few are bad actors?
We should always err on the side of least effect on innocent people, preferably no effect.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by AK+Marc · 2014-07-28 15:12 · Score: 1

And it does not "ban" any people, innocent or otherwise. It bans anonymous edits from an IP. That isn't a person. That is just one of the many ways of making edits. It certainly isn't a "ban" as they still get "use" of Wikipedia, reading and otherwise. They just can't edit, anonymously, from that IP. Edit anonymously from home, or get a login. It's not a hardship to anyone.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Chris Hedges by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-25 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” - Chris Hedges

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Re:Chris Hedges by Minwee · 2014-07-25 08:32 · Score: 1

We used to know that, but we live in a nation where ArcadeMan destroys Chris Hedges.

News source by OzPeter · 2014-07-25 04:11 · Score: 2

I was amused to see that TFA was a front page BBC article. For comparison I went to CNN and FOX to see what was reported there. Didn't find anything on either of those 2 sites.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:News source by Infiniti2000 · 2014-07-25 04:26 · Score: 1

Well, it's not like this is really news yet. Let's see if we can dig up what's really happening at Congress. Is a representative actively sanctioning this behavior? If so, then that's news.
Re:News source by Sir_Eptishous · 2014-07-25 04:33 · Score: 1

I learn more about what happens in the US from foreign news than I ever do from US news, with the exception of The News Hour on PBS, NPR and Democracy Now.

American mass media and "journalism" is a vast miasma of bloated infomercial junk food weight loss car commercial erection drug propaganda aimed at conditioning whats left of the American Mind into dull and plodding consumerism and hopelessness.

Bread and Circuses and all that.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:News source by hax4bux · 2014-07-25 05:27 · Score: 1

I love your .sig
Re:News source by MaWeiTao · 2014-07-25 05:40 · Score: 1

I agree with you on everything exception your mention of Democracy Now. They definitely cover some legitimate stories and they haven't been commercialized, but they're clearly pushing a particular worldview and appealing to a certain demographic in very much the same way as Foxnews. Just because you happen to agree with that particular perspective doesn't mean that they aren't biased.
Re:News source by maird · 2014-07-25 07:16 · Score: 1

... American mass media and "journalism" is a vast miasma of bloated infomercial junk food weight loss car commercial erection drug propaganda aimed at conditioning whats left of the American Mind into dull and plodding consumerism and hopelessness. ...
That part is not fair. The other day when I got hooked on watching large building controlled explosion demolitions (implosions) were it not for a local Las Vegas TV station's news department's one hour coverage of it I would not have discovered the superb footage of the thirty second downing of the Alladin with the inclusion of sacrificial cameras. I love you balcony cam!

Absolutely correct by argStyopa · 2014-07-25 04:14 · Score: 1

That's an unfair assertion, and completely not supported by facts.

Don Rumsfeld has NOT been proven to be an alien, nor have I seen any evidence that he prefers Mexicans over any other nationality, much less the exclusivity implied by the wiki entry.

Glad they fixed it.

--
-Styopa

Re:Absolutely correct by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 04:41 · Score: 1

I don't understand why he doesn't simply deny these allegations. Every time he has been asked he avoided the question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_gy7-bOoo

Sad by JWW · 2014-07-25 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

What is really sad is that these congressional staffers show suck a lack of professionalism and honor in doing their jobs.

There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

The concept of a government and laws derived from debate and compromise and consideration of different sides of an issue has been wiped out in favor of "I am right and you are wrong, and since you are wrong you can shut the hell up."

So much of this shit looks like stuff a 3rd grader would come up with to insult their enemies.

Re:Sad by dbc · 2014-07-25 04:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.
Indeed. I recall when Hubert Humphrey retuned to the Senate floor after months of cancer treatment. He was terminal, in the last weeks of his life, but he found the energy to return one last time. Barry Goldwater, a man he had run against during a presidential election, a man who was always on the opposite side of any debate, crossed the aisle and embraced Humphrey in a bear hug that lasted a least two minutes, Senate decorum be damned. On national television. These two men, decade after decade, made the case for their beliefs, debated vigorously, but never lost each other's respect. Where has that gone?
Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 05:06 · Score: 1

Where has that gone?
Forsaken for the sake of the Eternal Campaign. You are now always campaigning for your party's next presidential candidate, which means the other party must always be demonized.
Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 05:22 · Score: 1

It started when it became ok to simply "hate" GWB. You never needed a reason.
Hardly.
Robert Bork ring any bells? The treatment Clarence Thomas got and still gets?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/weekend-opinionator-kennedy-bork-and-the-politics-of-judicial-destruction/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Re:Sad by RabidReindeer · 2014-07-25 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd push it a lot farther back than that. More like when it became fashionable to hate Liberals. Not merely as individuals a la GWB, but as an entire group.
To the point that Liberals, who - as any Conservative will happily point out - are too spineless to defend themselves, dodged the problem by renaming themselves "Progressives".
Re:Sad by plover · 2014-07-25 06:03 · Score: 1

The vandalism in question is coming from someone who has access to a congressional staffer's computer, not necessarily a member of congress. This could be anyone from a member of congress to a teenage page to the 12-year-old nephew of a congressman's chief of staff to an intern to a night watchman. Apparently, there are about 9000 people with regular access to the machines in this address range. Given a sampling of 9000 people, how many are going to be as impolite as an internet troll? That there is at least one uncultured moron in the crowd is not particularly surprising.
Yes, it's sad that anyone would either sink to this level, or fail to grow beyond it. It's just not surprising.

--
John
Re:Sad by jae471 · 2014-07-25 07:45 · Score: 1

Dan Inouye and Bob Dole was another good example of close friends on opposite sides of the aisle.
Re:Sad by ganjadude · 2014-07-25 08:55 · Score: 1

the big secret is that in priivate, they ARE all still friends behind closed doors. R and D are 2 sides of the same coin. washington is like the WWE, all scripted

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Sad by ganjadude · 2014-07-25 08:57 · Score: 1

except nothing he did republicans support, they only supported bush because he was a republican, not because he was acting like one. Kind of like how people still support obama on the left, eventhough he is by their definition "too right"

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Sad by ganjadude · 2014-07-25 08:59 · Score: 1

you gotta go even further than that. the progressive platform fell flat on its face 100 years ago, rebranded as liberal, and has once again rebranded.

Is it the evil conservitives who did this? or is it that the american public sees through it after being hoodwinked for so long that it requires a reboot?? I dont know the answer to that one

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

the actions of a few by Sleeping+Kirby · 2014-07-25 04:39 · Score: 2

"Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? " Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous". Not so fun now that it's on the other foot, is it? However, unlike those claims, they do have control of AND responsibility over their entire network. This IP ban is standard practice for IT security. If they can't secure their network, then they don't deserve access to the server. Access to servers are a privilege, not a right.

--
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.

Re:the actions of a few by Rockoon · 2014-07-25 05:10 · Score: 1

Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous".
You missed gun regulation bills because "some use guns to murder", banking regulation bills because "the fraud laws that were violated arent good enough", gambling regulation bills because "some people gamble away their house", ....

...pretty much everything they do... including all the liberal shit that you didnt want to mention and probably dont even realize is the exact same thing...

--
"His name was James Damore."

Rewriting the history by jones_supa · 2014-07-25 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

While Wikipedia is varying in quality, I'm actually glad that we have at least some kind of transparency to see who makes the various edits. I wonder what kind of manipulation or shilling has been going on with dead tree encyclopedias or history books?

Wikiality by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-25 04:53 · Score: 1

Some of the edits are funny and the response to the Wikipedia admin from whoever is doing this is also kinda funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617234780&oldid=617214414

Apparently most of the other Congressional staffers editing Wikipedia are transphobic otherkinphobic conspiritard Republicunts shilling for the heteronormative patriarchy. And it seems like a lot the Wikipedia administrators are as well. No wonder this site is so biased. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just been informed that there's a Twitterbot posting all Wikipedia edits from Congress. There have been questions as to exactly which edits are otherkinphobic. The edit calling Donald Rumsfeld and "alien lizard" was clearly intended as a smear against otherkin people. Firstly, we prefer the term "Scalie". The term "alien lizard" is considered a slur. Secondly, if he wants be open about his species identity (if the claims that he's not cisspecies are true) then that should be his decision. People shouldn't be outed for their species identity before they want to come out. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth by mu51c10rd · 2014-07-25 05:02 · Score: 1

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."

Truth hurts...although I hear Guatemalan babies are much tastier with better spices.

Reptilian Humanoids by mu51c10rd · 2014-07-25 05:16 · Score: 1

This is going to drive the Area 51 conspiracy theorists crazy...
This edit on this article.

Unfair? Hardly. by Omega+Hacker · 2014-07-25 05:26 · Score: 2

From the article, presumably from a staffer: "Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? Some of us here are just making grammatical edits, adding information about birds in Omsk, or showing how one can patch KDE2 under FreeBSD."

Sorry, but if you're a congressional staffer, using a computer in a congressional office, why are you making edits about birds in Omsk, or KDE? You want to make those edits, do them from your own home on your own time. There, I fixed it.

--
GStreamer - The only way to stream!

The @CongressEdits Wikipedia page by tarc · 2014-07-25 05:27 · Score: 1

Was created by a person via that IP address in question;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...

Curious...

Re:Maybe it's a bot? by WaffleMonster · 2014-07-25 05:44 · Score: 1

Is it impossible for a congressional computer which is obviously connected to the public Internet to be a botnet slave?

Maybe your a botnet slave? How would we know if you weren't?

For all we know someone else outside of congress controls this computer/router/whatever

It's controlled by a Gremlin in the Kremlin. Mothra Russ1a p0wn3 a11.

Supervise Your Children by Toad-san · 2014-07-25 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

""Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? "

Yes. It may get the attention of the guilty parties. I, for one, want to see the exact identification of that House representative, the office guilty of this ongoing abuse. Name names, cowards!

Re:Supervise Your Children by d34thm0nk3y · 2014-07-25 08:30 · Score: 1

Name names, cowards!

It's N'Aktuilxy Ktra'kht.

Oh wait, you meant the name of the staffer.

Misdirection and slight of hand (Wiki Style) by vovin · 2014-07-25 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

You should probably look at *all the other edits* to articles made around and during the vandalism spree.

this is bad. by rickb928 · 2014-07-25 08:35 · Score: 1

If congressional staff is denied this recreational outlet, they will just find other mischief.

Which can only result in more laws and more spending

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

The CIA Or? by JimSadler · 2014-07-25 08:37 · Score: 2

Things are out of balance. We have a Central Intelligence Agency but we do not have a Central Stupidity Agency. Until we do the House of representatives is taking the role and we have people or lizards like Donald Rumsfield and the right wing to help keep our nation well influenced by total stupidity.

Crunchy Babies... by OutOnARock · 2014-07-25 10:47 · Score: 1

Chef: Should we take the bones out?

Donald: If you take the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy

Re:The bigger picture... by SeaFox · 2014-07-25 11:21 · Score: 1

LOL. If we fired every person on Capitol Hill who wasted taxpayer money we'd have no legislative branch.

Re:The bigger picture... by sjames · 2014-07-25 12:13 · Score: 1

Now we're getting somewhere.

They missed one... by Shoten · 2014-07-25 13:31 · Score: 1

The Mediaite page is still not quite kosher. At the end of the first paragraph:

"There's significant evidence to suggest that they're also inundated with Thetans."

So....yeah.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.

Wikipedia's page on the U.S. Constitution by MillionthMonkey · 2014-07-25 14:25 · Score: 1

Corporations are to be afforded the divine rights of human beings! [This article has multiple issues. Please help improvement or discuss these issues in chambers.]

(On the discussion page it looks like all the recent edits are coming from five guys at the Supreme Court.)

Slashdot Mirror

Wikipedia Blocks 'Disruptive' Edits From US Congress

107 of 165 comments (clear)