Talk:Project Chanology

Guy fawkes/EFG?

This article incorrectly states that EFG is 4Chan's name for guy fawkes, this is not true. He did not wear the mask from the beginning, he got it in 2006. In one "episode" of EFG, Guy Fawkes threatens him with a lawsuit, further proving he's not intended to be Guy Fawkes.--86.87.28.191 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V for this assertion? Cirt (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply remove the offending piece. We don't need to explain the etymology of every *chan meme. Just say that they are Guy Fawkes masks based on the *chan character of EFG, and don't assert either way that EFG is or is not Guy Fawkes. As was already presented, the mask that EFG wears is in fact made from the real face of Guy Fawkes, but it'd be hard to find a source for that. So to balance both factual correctness with sources, simply cut the incorrect part, and don't replace it until we have a verifiable source. the_one092001 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There already are reliable sources satisfying WP:V backing up the current info in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The link for that source is dead. Ukvilly (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the info, source, and dead link. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest sock disruption

Apparently in addition to DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), we now have YesOn8 (talk · contribs) using socks to disrupt this article:

• Comparable2Allah (talk · contribs)
• Helpur (talk · contribs)
• CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs)
• McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs)
• QuaylePalin2012 (talk · contribs)
• SoothingDharma (talk · contribs)
• Upperclear (talk · contribs)
• ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs)
• PornAndPrawnExtravaganza (talk · contribs)
• OngoingHow (talk · contribs)
• 1Bridge2FreeAll (talk · contribs)
• HubbardTechGuardian (talk · contribs)
• Bfair2mychurch (talk · contribs)
• 67.222.12.152 (talk · contribs)
• 68.184.150.94 (talk · contribs)
• 81.241.176.23 (talk · contribs)
• 220.233.172.193 (talk · contribs)
• 123.2.123.220 (talk · contribs)
• 194.54.88.40 (talk · contribs)

Some of the more recent socks used to revert to the same material in this article. More info here, here, here, and here. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue. If anybody else makes that same edit to this article, it is safe to assume that they are also either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and should be blocked. So if anyone is reading this and considering changing the article in that same way, then don't. You will be held accountable. Firestorm ^Talk 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Firestorm (talk · contribs). I am adding some more socks that have disrupted this article to the above list. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YesOn8/Archive, users investigating YesOn8 (talk · contribs) also thought that YesOn8 was itself a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NOR policy

[1] and then again [2] = violations of WP:NOR policy. This should be removed from the article. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

no it should not. I tried to go to the site, but it was down. Please assume good faith. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to back up this claim? Cirt (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevant link has been added. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not a secondary source, and again, that is a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, removed as not backed up to a WP:RS source, and a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the people you claim as sock puppets raised very good points. That are several documented stories of Anonymous protestors engaging iin everything from cybercrime to criminal tresspass, but yet the article barely even discusses these issues. Wikipedia is suppose to be objective and unbiased, but yet the admins and editors of this board are engaging in sock puppet allegations and account bans to people that want to add material that reflects badly on Anon. In fact, it's Cirt in particular that is leading the way with the anti-scieno slant. In typical fashion, I fully expect this comment to be deleted and my name added to McCarthy's, ahemn, I mean Cirt's list of names. This artile is in serious need to be peer reviewed by a group of people who don't suffer from bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjbraden (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are these issues, as you claim, then find reliable secondary sources that confirm this. Otherwise, "stories" are useless. Wikipedia's standard is Verifiability, not Truth. Also, re: sockpuppetry, all of those have been confirmed by what we call a Checkuser, who has special tools that can confirm that one editor is using multiple accounts to disrupt the wiki. Cirt is, I believe, not a Checkuser; all he is doing is maintaining a list of people that have been confirmed by one of them and has edited this page to insert their bias. If you feel that the article has a need to be peer reviewed, you may put one up at WP:PR. Firestorm ^Talk 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)