| Revision as of 14:17, 6 December 2009 editJeandré du Toit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,684 edits burden of proof, more detail on early libel← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:45, 6 December 2009 edit undoJeandré du Toit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,684 edits 66.109.214.15 (2006-06-19), 98.96.155.166Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Jonathan Byrne libel vandalism.== | ==Jonathan Byrne libel vandalism.== | ||
| None of the refs given mention Byrne, some refs may never have existed in the first place. Looks like the same vandal using |
None of the refs given mention Byrne, some refs may never have existed in the first place. Looks like the same vandal using | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] (2006-06-19) | |||
| *]. -- ] (]), 2009-12-05t12:03z, -- ] (]), 2009-12-06t14:45z | |||
| :Jeandre: I'm not so sure you can tie all of these addresses together into a consipricy. I think you were wrong to just blow away all of the edits you did today. Granted, they were not all correctly sourced but given the very long time spanning each update and the multiple IP addresses, I don't think this can be labeled as normal vandalism. I'm looking a little deeper to see if there is a better explaination. --] (]) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | :Jeandre: I'm not so sure you can tie all of these addresses together into a consipricy. I think you were wrong to just blow away all of the edits you did today. Granted, they were not all correctly sourced but given the very long time spanning each update and the multiple IP addresses, I don't think this can be labeled as normal vandalism. I'm looking a little deeper to see if there is a better explaination. --] (]) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::See . Not |
::See . Not one of the refs mentioned Byrne. Some of the early libels from about 2006 didn't put in any refs, but since then non existent refs or refs that never mention Byrne are used - hoping nobody will actually check the refs. The smartest fake ref seems to be the skunk ape one, the rest are very clearly fake. -- ] (]), 2009-12-06t14:45z | ||
Revision as of 14:45, 6 December 2009
Jonathan Byrne libel vandalism.
None of the refs given mention Byrne, some refs may never have existed in the first place. Looks like the same vandal using
- 38.106.143.248
- 67.105.2.130
- 71.218.125.196
- 71.212.174.130
- 66.109.214.15 (2006-06-19)
- User talk:98.96.155.166. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-05t12:03z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-06t14:45z
- Jeandre: I'm not so sure you can tie all of these addresses together into a consipricy. I think you were wrong to just blow away all of the edits you did today. Granted, they were not all correctly sourced but given the very long time spanning each update and the multiple IP addresses, I don't think this can be labeled as normal vandalism. I'm looking a little deeper to see if there is a better explaination. --69.132.202.95 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- See burden of proof. Not one of the refs mentioned Byrne. Some of the early libels from about 2006 didn't put in any refs, but since then non existent refs or refs that never mention Byrne are used - hoping nobody will actually check the refs. The smartest fake ref seems to be the skunk ape one, the rest are very clearly fake. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-06t14:45z