Talk:Pranknet

Removing personal information

This group's actions are reprehensible and criminal, and its members deserve to be exposed, but this is all the more reason that the personal information (names, locations, personal details) of members must be removed as blatant violations of WP:BLP. All of this detailed information is pretty much solely based on an uncorroborated TSG investigative report. While prior convictions, if documented, are a matter of public record, these individuals are private citizens who have not (yet) been charged or convicted of any crime with respect to Pranknet, and if false, these serious criminal allegations would be seriously libelous. We simply cannot have these names and details recorded here based solely on a recent TSG exposé. NTK (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried simply removing names but do not have the time to do this throughout the article. Please do not simply revert, but if re-adding incidents from news sources, please ensure that they are linked to Pranknet and that names are not added into this article based solely on the TSG report at this time. Note I left the TSG report link in; those who wish to read or trust it can still find it, which is perfectly appropriate, but WP cannot simply adopt TSG's uncorroborated findings against private parties--untested in any court--as the truth, convincing as it may be. NTK (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree with you. The biographical information is verifiable and is not original research. We have done our best in the writing of this article to keep it NPOV. If you feel the text needs editing for better NPOV, please go ahead. Again, the information you removed does not violate Wikipedia's BLP policies. We are simple restating information verified and published by other quite reliable sources.

Please re-add what you removed, and edit for NPOV. We can always use better NPOV. Ouellette (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oulette, this is total nonsense. The information is all verifiable and corroborated, TSG is a recognized news source, owned by Turner Communications, and satisfies WP:RS, as do the MANY OTHER news sources used throughout this section. The information is all referenced and backed up, not only by the TSG news story but by public police documents. I am reverting your mass deletion. If you wish to contribute to improving the article, kindly work towards that goal: we can always be better. If you don't have time, then don't just blank large portions of information that is well-cited and informative as this does not improve the article. BLP is intended as a policy to make people carefully cite their articles and to include only factual, verifiable information, and there is no original research or attacks. All information contained in this article has already been published in multiple news sources now. Please do not remove cited, verifiable informaion. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you seem to have confused WP:NPOV with WP:BLP. Perhaps you are not fully aware of the shift in Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons, especially non-celebrities and especially regarding potentially libelous materials. I am not arguing that TSG is a bad source, or that the report contains false information. I note that one of the individuals has already been charged as a result of the TSG report and that name, link, and information should stay. I expect that very soon most or all of these individuals will be tried and this will be reported upon by other news sources and this can be reported here. Until that time, breaking single-sourced allegations and biographical information should not be adopted wholesale in this article regarding private individuals. Links to the TSG articles are perfectly appropriate; but saying "Malik Malik Malik" did each and every one of these acts that TSG alleges--even upon credible evidence--violates the BLP policy. He has not yet been charges, as far as I know, nor did I see any non-TSG sources, and even at that point, allegations should be recorded as allegations for the time beling. Please add information back incrementally as appropriate rather than wholesale reverting this, per the living persons rules. NTK (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than edit-war (and I note that BLPs are a specific exception to the 3RR), I've posted this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and will let others hash this out. Edit: Actually, User:Fawcett5 already posted it there, yesterday. NTK (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the cited Globe and Mail article interviewed "Dex" after the TSG report and quotes him saying "he is Canadian but not Tariq Malik." Failing to note this, while adopting the TSG report's facts, is inexcusable. NTK (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BLP and you're misinterpreting it. BLP doesn't require that any and all negative information about living individuals be purged from Wikipeida. BLP requires articles containing information about living people to be well-cited, factual and neutral, and to be completely free of OR and uncited claims. The section about the Pranknet individuals, so far as I can see, is well-cited, contains no original research or unverified claims. If you wish something specific to be cited, then please note it by placing a {{fact}} tag by it. The article does not say anyone has been charged yet, except for Powell, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The only information contained in the article is information gleaned from a number of reliable sources. Again, no OR or unverified claims. Each of the rather small paragraphs about the individuals are short and factual, without any attack-phrases or unverified negative claims.

breaking single-sourced allegations and biographical information should not be adopted wholesale in this article regarding private individuals.

We aren't "breaking" anything, that would be original research. This is all public knowledge which has been reported in multiple reliable news sources.

Links to the TSG articles are perfectly appropriate; but saying "Malik Malik Malik" did each and every one of these acts that TSG alleges--even upon credible evidence--violates the BLP policy.

Where does the article say Malik did each and every one of these acts?

Please add information back incrementally as appropriate rather than wholesale reverting this, per the living persons rules.

I prefer to retain the current, consensus-driven version of the article. As everything can be improved upon, I encourage you to reach consensus for changes to the article without deleting large, well-cited tracts of information.

Also, the cited Globe and Mail article interviewed "Dex" after the TSG report and quotes him saying "he is Canadian but not Tariq Malik." Failing to note this, while adopting the TSG report's facts, is inexcusable.

What is inexcusable is that you say it's inexcusable but make no effort to improve the article by adding this correct and verifiable information. Are you interested in working together and improving the article or using BLP as a club to enforce your preferred version? When I get a chance I'll look at the Globe and Mail article and make your suggested change. If you have other similar changes that can improve the article in a factual and verifiable way please make them and/or suggest them here. (EDIT: I have added the sentence you mentioned above about the Globe and Mail statement.) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are asking me to assume good faith in your nomination of one of my articles for deletion but you say that I am "attacking" this article; how about assuming good faith that I am trying to bring this article in conformance with the BLP policy? Another user independently expressed concerns before me at the BLP noticeboard--I came here before I noticed that, and the first independent response there was in agreement. As the article reads now, it is attributing each and every "Dex" incident to Malik, based solely upon the recent, breaking TSG investigation. It's not a matter of deleting negative information because it is negative; it is because it is a living private individual, it is an unqualified statement that he is guilty of multiple felonies, and based upon a single investigative source by what is essentially an Internet crime tabloid, reputable or not. When he has not been charged and this has not been independently verified I don't think that is sufficient to link a private individual, who is denying responsibility, based on the conservative BLP policy. The article should refer to the previously reported incidents using the internet handles of those who claimed responsibility, should link to TSG and other breaking reporting, and name individuals as they have been charged or as they have affirmatively stepped into the spotlight. NTK (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The attempt to "bring the article into compliance with BLP" was mistaken, as there is no BLP violation. And it was simply a blanking of 3/4 of the article rather than a real attempt to discuss what you felt were the issues or to fix them. Once again, everything here is simply a rephrasing of PUBLIC information gleaned from public reliable sources. I understand that you prefer to interpret BLP conservatively but that is not necessarily correct or to the benefit of Wikipedia. Interpretations of policy leave a lot of room for subjective theorizing and it eventually amounts to policy creep and widespread misunderstanding about what the policy actually means. I prefer to adhere to the literal policy, which this article doesn't appear to me to violate. After all, policies exist apart from interpretation and trees that fall in a forest do make a noise, even if nobody is there to hear it. Again, though, you have a point that some of the wording is not ideal and we can fix that without gutting the article itself. The attributions to Malik have been revised and are now attributed to "Dex". <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How in the world is this a blatant violation of BLP? Everything in this article is cited by reliable news sources (PLURAL), verifiable, and unoriginal research. We can't be afraid of citing reliable sources that contain difficult content. Furthermore, there is a lot of information we've intentionally LEFT OUT of the article (such as phone numbers and street addresses of the individuals which were made public by TSG), because it is not encyclopedic and also would violate BLP practices. Ouellette (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on over here too [1], feel free to participate. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Once people's info has been published by a reliable news source, it is fair game -- and often important -- for Wikipedia. This is not WP:BLP, because we are not saying "So-and-so did this." We are saying that certain news organizations are reporting that they did this. And since that's verifiably true, there's no issue of libel. Tragic romance (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of the article states 'Dex' created the site in 2000. It later goes on to state the name 'Dex' was taken from the TV series "Dexter" Firstly, Dexter is a fictional character, not a television series. Secondly, the first Dexter novel (never mind the TV series) was not published till 2004, four whole years after the creation of the site

Yet TSG lists off that the name "Dex" was inspired by the television series. Really, great news source. They can't even fact-check their own lies for shits sake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.248 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to check your logic. Just because "Dex" created the group in 2000 doesn't mean he was calling himself "Dex" back then. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And why is it more logical that he changed his handle, than TSG made an unproved leap in judgment to assume the handle was taken from the show? (The show is a popular target to be linked with alleged criminals, as the assertion that they draw inspiration from a psychotic implies they have similar tendencies). It is clearly being used as a device to filter the readers perceptions of Tariq Malik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.125.220 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been specified in the edit history, Youtube is not a reliable source. Your claim that Malik cannot be "Dex" because the show and book didn't come out until later is a logical fallacy. The article says what he was called at the time of the investigations, not what he was called back when he started his website or group or whatever it is supposed to be. For all we know, he's used a hundred different handles. However, this article reliably cites information that he was calling himself "Dex" and that's the way it's going to stay until you can provide another reliable source that says otherwise. It wouldn't surprise me if you were Mr. Malik himself, or one of his pals, trying to whitewash his public image. The source says what it says. We aren't stupid. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What has sourcing Youtube got to do with anything? Distraction tactics much? Seeing as you have completely ignored addressing my point other than pointing out the flawed chronology argument, I shall reiterate it. The connection between the handle "Dex" and the fictional serial killer Dexter Morgan is an unsubstantiated claim made by TSG. They do not mention where this information has come from (I'm not sure what calling Malik has to do with any of this either, unless you want to claim he is a reliable source now and that the information came from him, in which case lets not "have sex with black men, they have AIDs"), and seem to have added it to their article only to filter the reader's view of "Dex". This is a similar problem as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label, except instead of a single word being used, it is the association of "Dex" with Dexter Morgan. And I am not Malik, nor am I in anyway associated with any of the Pranknet members or activities, just a rabid Dexter fan. Put the tinfoil hat away. By that logic I should assume you are a writer from TSG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.125.220 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talking with you is like trying to argue with a fencepost. TSG satisfies the reliable sources guideline and that's all that matters. Your insistence that they made an "unsubstantiated claim" is original research. We have a reliable source that says what it says and you have no reliable sources to refute it, just an apparent determination to disengage Malik from the "Dex" handle, or disengage him from responsibility for forming this group, or protect your personal mental image of a fictional character. Whether you're a Malik fan trying to whitewash his image or a Dexter Morgan fanboy isn't germane. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not ""The Truth". I've cited 4 policies and/or guidelines here. I'm all done. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever man, if you're just going to hide behind wiki protocol and not actual discuss my point then I'm done too, coward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.125.220 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?

I seriously think this article needs to be deleted. It's nowhere near important enough. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is established with multiple, reliable, third-party references, which this article contains. WP:N is clearly established. The case is ongoing, which will certainly result in additional information and references. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This article meets the criteria for notability. Ouellette (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to offer any rationale as to why you "seriously" think it needs to be deleted, or is "nowhere near" important enough? It is about a novel use of technology that is gaining worldwide news attention, an international ring of felons causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage all over the U.S., and intense human-interest as examples of how people can be led to do the most absurd and destructive things, all because "the voice of authority" told them to. This is an ongoing international criminal case. Et Cetera. Obviously none of those on its own justifies an article, but together there is more than enough weight here. Tragic romance (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Profiles of Involved Persons?

This may be beyond the scope of this article, but I would be interested to learn if there have been any professional or expert opinions on the motives of these individuals who have been alleged to have committed these acts. It seems as if many of these individuals have become disaffected with society in some fashion. Lulaq (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

None that I know of. Two of them are convicted child molestors/rapists so perhaps it's just another way for impotent antisocial cowards to victimize people while staying hidden. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Prank University?

People keep adding stuff here saying PrankNet is now called Prank University, but there aren't any reliable sources provided. Should this be left in or removed? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please leave it in, details are unfolding (nightly) as these guys do their thing. In their live feeds (www.pranku.net/live) they are actually talking about the past in more detail than we have listed here. In addition, in listening to their live feeds (orchestrated by "dex"), you can hear they have the exact same MO and utilize the same tools and social engineering exploits. I seriously doubt this is a copycat org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.62.46 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it for now as reliable sources still refer to them as Pranknet. It can be changed when we have a citation to a reliable source, though. In the meantime, here's the latest [2]. I don't have time to make the update right now. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

camon wikipedia, get with the game. Its called pranku or prank university now. you dont need solid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.28.205 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I think this article has too much of a negative tone about PrankNET. It focuses too much on the related investigation and legal issues. One suggestion I have is to refer to the "incidents" as pranks, despite the amount of damage they caused. 'FLaRN'(talk) 05:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is being adhered to as the article is simply repeating what the reliable, third-party sources are saying. There are no weasel words or unsourced negative claims. Additionally, "incidents" is the most neutral term we can use. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I always thought of the word "incidents" as strictly meaning something negative. Maybe use "pranks" or "calls", or just "prank calls." These terms aren't specifically defined as only applying to things that are positive or negative. 'FLaRN'(talk) 03:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidents doesn't actually carry a negative connotation. "Incident" means, literally, something that happened. Trying to change it to "pranks" or something else seems like a step towards whitewashing, or an attempt to reclassify what they're doing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete reorganization of the page

There are many things that are wrong with this page. First off the creator and leaders name "dex" was not inspired by a show or books. Second it is called PrankU or prank university not pranknet. Third, it says the motives for the prank calls are unknown and that is wrong. The motive for the calls is for lulz and lulz only. Lastly, i know i will probably get flamed for "not providing sources" or "breaking wikipedia code blablabla" But im pretty sure you have some exception for the whole "sources" thing when it is original research. I am a long standing member of the prankU community and i know how it works. Would you really turn down a person who has first hand experience about something because he cant back up his original research with sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.28.205 (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you really turn down a person who has first hand experience about something because he cant back up his original research with sources? Yes, we would. Is Markle enjoying the slammer? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 02:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not Oprah. Go tell your story to her. Ouellette (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue tag

What is undue? If there's no discussion I'll remove the drive-by tagging in another day or so. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP

I don't see any BLP violations. BLP says that it has to be verifiable (it is per the reliable sources), it has to be NPOV (it is), and it can't include OR (it says what the sources say). Where's the violation? Maybe some of the subjects of the article are hoping to whitewash it and getting otherwise well-intentioned editors to unknowingly do it. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pranknet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090810084814/http://www.lufkindailynews.com:80/hp/content/news/stories/2009/08/07/Markle.html to http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/08/07/Markle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090810074955/http://www.lufkindailynews.com:80/hp/content/news/stories/2009/08/06/prankster.html to http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/08/06/prankster.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

McDonald’s

Guys 2601:603:1A7F:C0B0:DD3E:B2C6:EED4:84C4 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Finding malik

"In June 2009, The Smoking Gun launched an investigation that lasted nearly two months and included travel to Windsor, Ontario and a stakeout outside Malik's mother's home. Smoking Gun editor William Bastone emailed "Dex", and during a Skype interview provided URLs on the Smoking Gun website. The URLs were unique; when Malik viewed them, it revealed his IP address and location"

This doesn't make any sense. The Smoking Gun obtained his actual physical address from his IP? That can only be done by authorities, who the TSG are not (as much as they like to think they are). For everybody else an IP only gives you the city the person's ISP is in. The source does not explain how they did this either. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 10:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)