User talk:156.33.241.5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ginsuloft. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Edward Snowden seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ginsuloft (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Might want to look a bit closer:
   NetRange:       156.33.0.0 - 156.33.255.255
   CIDR:           156.33.0.0/16
   OriginAS:       AS3495
   NetName:        USSAA
   OrgName:        United States Senate
   OrgId:          USSAA
   Address:        2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
   City:           WASHINGTON DC
   StateProv:      DC
   PostalCode:     20510
   Country:        US
I guess we know who's paying him.
Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
That's an assumption of bad faith. People sometimes edit in their personal capacity from a work computer. The real issue is that the edit violates WP:NPOV. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
As an experienced wikipedian and a site administrator, I can tell you that such things have happened in the past, and all they accomplished was to embarrass the person or persons behind the edits. If that was your goal, keep it up. If it was not, I suggest you find a better use for your time. See U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia for more information on past incidents of this nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're here because of the Edward Snowden edit[edit]

If you have come here due to an edit made by this IP to the Edward Snowden article, please read this message before continuing.

The edit was made by this IP and the IP does belong to the US Senate. The edit was reverted within 1 minute due to the fact that it does not reflect a neutral point of view which is one of the Five Pillars that governs how Wikipedia operates. In that way, Wikipedia not only performed as it should but it did so incredibly quickly.

As you can see, this IP has had "anonymous editing" disabled which means that people may still edit from this IP but must do it from a registered account.

If you have come to leave a comment regarding this edit, please know that Wikipedia is not a forum and your comment will most likely be quickly removed from this page. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia by keeping it neutral, the neutral point of view noticeboard may be a good place for you to start.

I hope Wikipedia has been as beneficial to you as it has to me and that you decide to stay and become a valuable contributor. OlYeller21Talktome 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you point out how this IP was soft blocked? I'm not seeing it in the block log. Jehochman Talk 02:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not but you knew that. I could have sworn I saw a comment or edit summary that suggested that it was blocked, which I found surprising. I should have been more careful.
This doesn't change my message, though. Striking through for clarity. OlYeller21Talktome 03:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know anything for sure. I thought I might have misunderstood the situation. Jehochman Talk 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, [1] removing comments is how you build up public steam and sometimes end up creating a media storm. Perhaps we need something like a comments section on pages like this. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If you prove that such a situation has happened on Wikipedia before or that it will happen here, I might be inclined to look at a solution that directly goes against WP:NOT. Until then, I'm not really willing to entertain the idea of supporting something that implements WP:IAR. OlYeller21Talktome 17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
On the one hand, I applaud your empirical approach. On the other, in general, diverse wiki communities (including wikipedia) have found that meatball:ExpandScope occurs there where discussion is suppressed, and have documented this fact over the past decade or so already. At this point in time, this situation is at the "reported in the press" stage as it stands :-P http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384188/Edward-Snowdens-Wikipedia-page-edited-dissident-traitor-US-Senate.html . If we don't engage and correct errors in perception, we might expect a few more like that. Fortunately the daily mail themselves seem to have done fairly solid job so far. It's the social media rumor mill that's blowing things up. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Solid argument. Can't disagree with you. My gut is telling me to wait until more comments are left here before creating a comment-type page but I'm obviously not the gate keeper. OlYeller21Talktome 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
People (like I am) will be reluctant to comment after reading at the top of this section that "this is not a forum" and comments "will most likely be removed", so I would like to provide a +1 to this idea on behalf of all those who would have commented otherwise. - Fluck (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia blocks Tor, proxies and VPNs but doesn't block IP addresses from government agencies that make biased edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.251.228.20 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Biased edits? There was one edit of a single word that was reverted in 60 seconds. I don't know how that equals allowing biased "edits" from a government agency.
We don't care where biased edits come from. Blocking what amounts to a proxy is a decision made completely outside of this issue. If you wish to voice your opinion regarding that issue, please do so at WT:PROXY. OlYeller21Talktome 01:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)