So after much mucking about...
Is there any agreement for there being a manner in which to demonstrate to the community's consensus satisfaction that a claimed source has been added fraudulently and either does not really exist or does not really say what the citation claims it does?
What I seem to have been seeing here is that there's an unreasonable tendency to assume that a citation is legitimate. I would prefer if there were a healthy degree of skepticism associated with citations - any citation that does not contain enough information for a reasonable researcher to locate the original source, or at least verify the existence of the original source, should be challengable in a reasonable manner.