Collins sanitising wikipedia

Written By: - Date published: 8:07 am, July 8th, 2013 - 174 comments
Categories: internet, Judith Collins - Tags:

Wellington alcohol and drug counsellor Roger Brooking has revealed a campaign by Judith Collins’ staff to sanitise her Wikipedia page and the pages on various issues related to New Zealand justice issues. References to facts that National doesn’t want to acknowledge – such as its links to the Sensible Sentencing Trust – have been purged by Collins’ team.

Is taxpayer money being used to pay the salaries of people who are rewriting Wikipedia to meet National’s political ends?

174 comments on “Collins sanitising wikipedia ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. David H 1
    8 July 2013 at 8:29 am

    Well they certainly have been busy in the last 6 weeks. And the ‘reasons/excuses’
    are listed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judith_Collins&action=history

  2. TheContrarian 2
    8 July 2013 at 8:57 am

    As a long time Wiki editor there are many things wrong with the blog post cited.

    Firstly “JC Press Sec” declared, openly, who they were:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Collins#Replace_photo

    Secondly Roger was banned for using several sock-puppets:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JaggerAgain
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Offender9000/Archive

    And then lying about about being new to Wikipedia in June 2013 when previous sock (Offender9000) actually started editing in 2011:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_aid_in_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=561740162

    This has less to do with Wikipedia sanitation and more to do with Roger breaking wikipedia rules regarding sock-puppetry.

    Not to mention NZ Bill of Rights on Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to Wikipedia.

    So I call bullshit. Obviously bullshit.

    • felix 2.1
      8 July 2013 at 10:20 am

      Putting Roger to one side then.

      What do you think about Collins using our money to pay staff to whitewash Wikipedia pages by removing inconvenient facts related to Collins and National?

      • TheContrarian 2.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 10:24 am

        “What do you think about Collins using our money to pay staff to whitewash Wikipedia pages by removing inconvenient facts related to Collins and National?”

        What do I think of an unsubstantiated claim from a guy who has been caught out lying once already? Not much.

        • Jackal 2.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 7:55 pm

          Why is it an ‘unsubstantiated claim’ The Conformist? Here’s one of the removed entries Offender9000 was concerned with:

          Following her decision to peer review Judge Binnie’s compensation report on David Bain, businessman Sir Bob Jones commented that Collins’ behaviour displayed “breath-taking arrogance without precedence” and suggested she was unfit to be Minister of Justice.[50]

          I tend to side with Offender9000 here. Removing this sentence which is a factual occurrence that was properly referenced is not appropriate. There are also other entries that have been removed to sanitize the Wikipedia entry, which makes me think Roger Brooking’s is perfectly correct in bringing this manipulation to people’s attention.

          Although some of Offender9000 entries appear to be personal opinions, not all of them were and simple re-write could have rectified things. As I’m sure you’re aware, you only need a few editors to vote somebody out, and in terms of the last entry that was removed, it’s clearly no justification for a ban.

          This entry however, which Offender9000 also objected to being removed, I’m not so sure about:

          Concerns were also raised about Ms Collins’ judgement when it was revealed that she had appointed Auckland barrister Robert Kee to the position of Director of Human Rights Proceedings – with a salary of $200,000 a year. Mr Kee is a friend of her husband’s. Ms Collins chose Mr Kee for the job against the advice of officials who had recommended someone else.[35]

          • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 8:46 pm

            “Why is it an ‘unsubstantiated claim'”

            Because it is an unsubstantiated claim.

            • Jackal 2.1.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 9:39 pm

              I just substantiated it by providing a couple of the paragraphs that were removed for no good reason apart from trying to make Judith Collins look good.

              Brooking’s simply asks a question:

              Is Judith Collins using taxpayers’ money to get her staff to edit wikipedia articles to her liking?

              In effect you’re protesting that somebody is asking a questioning, because you think that the removal of information that paints Judith Collins in a bad light doesn’t prove anything. That’s fair enough, but ranting about Brooking’s being a liar is uncalled for.

              After looking at some of the entries and edits, in my opinion it’s highly likely that Judith Collins or somebody associated with her has made those edits. Your acceptance (further along this thread) of such censorship says more about your conformist ways than anything else TC. Your argument that such things are happening all the time and that somehow makes it OK is just pathetic!

              Personally, I’d expect wikipedia entries to be correct and factual. That’s what the rules are there for after all. In this respect Offender9000’s edits seem far more balanced than Clarke43 for instance.

              In one entry Clark43 argues for a pro Judith Collins opinion to be included, in another the argument is against the opinion of somebody being disparaging. This seems highly hypocritical to me, as both comments are relevant. Wikipedia’s rules apply equally to both opinions, and therefore it appears that Clark43 has a COI, and shouldn’t be editing Judith Collins’ Wikipedia page.

              Other Wikipedia editors have also raised concerns, so trying to say that Brooking’s is alone in joining the dots just makes you look foolish! You’ve referenced the talk page a number of times in your comments, but it appears that you haven’t even bothered to read it properly.

              The problem is that when people have a vested interest, they sometimes try to re-write history to make themselves look good. You would expect a Minister of the Crown to not undertake such manipulations, but ask yourself this; who would have something to gain from trying to whitewash Judith Collins’ Wikipedia entry?

              • TheContrarian …
                8 July 2013 at 10:17 pm

                “but ranting about Brooking’s being a liar is uncalled for.”

                He is a liar – it isn’t uncalled for, he is one.

                “The problem is that when people have a vested interest, they sometimes try to re-write history to make themselves look good”

                Which is what what Brooking was doing himself. And why he was banned from Wikipedia. For breaking sock-puppet rules, pimping his own interests and lying about it.

                One can speculate, fairly, someone on Collins team did the same – granted. But Brookings was caught red-handed.

                “I just substantiated it by providing a couple of the paragraphs that were removed for no good reason apart from trying to make Judith Collins look good”

                This isn’t the first time you have confused “What Jackal reckons” with “Good evidence”. It won’t be the last I am sure

                • Jackal …
                  8 July 2013 at 10:27 pm

                  Your disproportionate concern for why Offender9000/Brooking’s got banned doesn’t negate the real issue here The Conformist…no matter how much you rant and rave about it.

                  Personally I’m not all that interested in sock-puppets, and far more concerned with what our Minister’s might be getting up to. Your complete focus on the whistleblower is bordering on derangement!

      • Murray Olsen 2.1.2
        9 July 2013 at 10:51 pm

        I think Collins using civil servants to rewrite Wikipedia is disgusting and would be a scandal if we worried about responsibility and ethics in government. As most of the population don’t, it’ll be forgotten. As a whole, we accept too much that would have people out in the streets elsewhere. We are an apathetic lot.

    • marty mars 2.2
      8 July 2013 at 4:23 pm

      just out of interest – what sorts of things do you do/add/edit as a ‘longtime Wiki editor’ TC?

      • TheContrarian 2.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 4:32 pm

        I only have only edited Wikipedia sparingly. I have been an active editor at Rationalwiki for over 5 years though.

        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

        • marty mars 2.2.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 4:47 pm

          Thanks. Not wishing to derail the thread but the bit about Heterophobia was interesting

          Usage of the term heterophobic or heterophobia by anti-gay groups falls into the wider pattern of the persecution complex, in which groups criticized for their tendency to create hate and discrimination react by reframing their discriminatory tendencies as some value-neutral idea, and then suggesting that criticism of this reframed idea constitutes discrimination.

          Thus, racism becomes white pride, and the marginalized racist claims that his “heritage” is being sidelined unjustly through “reverse racism”.

          How often do we see that pushed out? A lot, a large lot indeed.

          • TheContrarian 2.2.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 5:06 pm

            It’s a good site for information, Rationalwiki is. Particularly when it comes to exploring anti-science and the far-right.

            I mentioned being a Wiki editor because as a long-time user and editor of Wiki’s it was very easy to check Brookings claims and see if they cut the mustard.

        • felix 2.2.1.2
          8 July 2013 at 5:05 pm

          Though this was more your speed.

    • UglyTruth 2.3
      8 July 2013 at 8:15 pm

      So I call bullshit. Obviously bullshit.

      Yes, on matters political Wikipedia is full of shit.

      http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-contradicts-the-rest-of-the-internet

  3. fender 3
    8 July 2013 at 9:21 am

    What a great Fuhrer Collins could be.

    Farking disgraceful conduct.

  4. TheContrarian 4
    8 July 2013 at 9:37 am

    And it gets worse:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Offender9000

    Roger Brooking has no credibility on this issue. He ran several sock puppets and pretended to be different people in violation of Wikipedia rules and attempted to white wash his own Wikipedia history before writing his blog post and calling foul.

    “The nub of the problem is not the correctness or validity of the material that Offender9000 added, but the systematic breaches of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (often shortened to WP:NPOV), which is a core wikipedia policy. Early in Offender9000’s editing career there were other issues (mainly WP:COI and WP:OUTTING), but these appear to have diminished over time. Note also that around the time of his most recent blog post, Offender9000 removed a great deal of material from this page (it’s in the view history link above) in which the issues were explained to him in great detail over a multi-year period”

    In short, he is lying.
    “Roger Brooking has revealed a campaign by Judith Collins’ staff to sanitise her Wikipedia page”

    The only thing revealed is Roger’s systematic attempts to game Wikipedia rules to push his own POV and getting caught.

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.1
      8 July 2013 at 8:30 pm

      Ad hominem much?

      The issue of his credibility as an editor isn’t worth talking about. What I’d like to talk about is whether Judith Collins’ staff are sanitizing wikipedia for her, which it seems pretty obvious they are.

      • QoT 4.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 9:08 pm

        Much as it pains me to agree with TC, a significant part of Brookings’ post involves the allegation that his banning is in some way connected with Collins’ office’s alleged sanitising of Wikipedia.

        For Brookings to say

        Collins did not want them to talk to me. When the producer asked her why, Collins said it was because she didn’t approve of articles I had edited on wikipedia about the New Zealand justice system.

        Banned from editing Wikipedia

        I found it hard to believe that Judith Collins would really be concerned about anything on wikipedia – until I found edits being made by someone calling herself JC press sec.

        …

        Is Judith Collins using taxpayers’ money to get her staff to edit wikipedia articles to her liking?

        Then I got banned from editing wikipedia altogether. Shortly after that most of the pages that I had contributed to were shredded.

        But not mention that he had used sockpuppets to evade bans nor that Wikipedia’s own processes had been clearly followed in the process of banning him really does make him look like someone who isn’t dealing completely honestly.

        (And it’s entirely possible to believe Collins, or plenty of other politicians, take a biased interest in their own Wikipedia articles and that Brookings isn’t being completely upfront about his involvement.)

  5. Sable 5
    8 July 2013 at 10:04 am

    Hmmmm, surprise, surprise. Beady eyes Collins like the rest of her cronies has an image problem, who would have guessed!!!

    This kind of behaviour, white washing the truth, is what we have come to expect from this government and it will only get worse if they are re-elected.

    On the subject of Wikipedia, is there anything to stop someone else from revamping her page and putting the comments back that were removed? As far as I know no one person “owns” these pages.

    • TheContrarian 5.1
      8 July 2013 at 10:08 am

      Roger is a liar, it is right there in his Wikipedia history.

      How can slam the “white washing the truth” in one respect yet not slam the very same actions of another? Lying for the cause is still lying.

      • BM 5.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 10:11 am

        Lefties aren’t really interested in the truth as you can probably tell.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 1:43 pm

          No, we’re interested in the truth and if he’s been caught lying then he’s been caught lying – just like John Key. The problem we have is the political-rights continuous attempts to re-write history and reality in their favour.

          • TheContrarian 5.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 1:50 pm

            Brooking is lying. It is all in the logs.

            • felix 5.1.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 2:00 pm

              Not interested in Brooking, thanks.

              Your obsession with a private citizen is a little concerning.

              • TheContrarian …
                8 July 2013 at 2:06 pm

                Alright, lets instead look at the evidence he presents…….uhhhh…hmmmm…yeah – a little difficult given he hasn’t presented any evidence.

                • felix …
                  8 July 2013 at 2:17 pm

                  So forget him. Everyone else has except you.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    8 July 2013 at 2:27 pm

                    Uhhh, yeah. I have produced numerous links to say Brookings claims don’t stack up.

                    Not one piece of evidence has been presented to suggest Collins team is engaged in white washing her article. A wikipedia editor mused on it and Collins press sec updated a photo, declared a COI and stopped editing.

                    Brookings a liar, his claims a vacuous nonsense and no one has presented anything to say otherwise

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  8 July 2013 at 2:18 pm

                  Except that Collins’ press secretary and others have been editing it and some of the edits have been reversed due to them being incorrect.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    8 July 2013 at 2:24 pm

                    “Except that Collins’ press secretary and others have been editing it and some of the edits have been reversed due to them being incorrect.”

                    Collins press sec was open about who they were and edits being reversed because they were incorrect? That’s wikipedia. That’s how it works.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 July 2013 at 6:26 pm

                      I’m quite aware that’s how Wikipedia works. The problem was that it was changed from being correct to being incorrect in the first place and seemingly for political reasons.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 7:03 pm

                      It’s a website everyone can edit, Draco. Hence a lot of incorrect shit is going to get added, correct things retraced etc etc.

                      The whole site is continuously in flux. What the fuck do you expect?
                      You want every edit to be approved by moderator first to judge veracity? If that’s the case you want Citizendium which has become a complete fucking failure.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 July 2013 at 8:43 pm

                      You want every edit to be approved by moderator first to judge veracity?

                      Nope, I just want people who make political edits that are incorrect to be held to account especially if the person making the edit has a relationship with the person the article was about. Basically, I’m saying that there’s difference between making a mistake and trying to re-write history in your favour. A difference you don’t seem to be able to comprehend.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 8:53 pm

                      The site is constantly in flux and some errors stand for weeks or months before someone discovers it. That’s the nature of the beast.

                      Don’t be an idiot Draco. It isn’t my misunderstanding, it is yours. Held to account? People who break the rules are banned from editing…like ol’ Brooking.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 10:07 pm

                      Thing is TC, this isn’t really about breaking the rules of Wikidom.

                      It’s about a Minister rewriting her own history to deceive the public.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 10:18 pm

                      “It’s about a Minister rewriting her own history to deceive the public.”

                      Evidence?

                      (Hint: “I think so”, “Join the dots”, “Well, I mean, come on!” etc isn’t actually evidence)

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 10:32 pm

                      Evidence of what? That people are questioning whether a Minister has been re-writing her own history?

                      It’s all over this thread.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.2
        8 July 2013 at 10:28 am

        Roger is X. Therefore Judith is what?

        I think it’s wise to avoid the vain temptation to edit your own Wikipedia entry.

      • Sable 5.1.3
        8 July 2013 at 1:09 pm

        Personally I don’t care if the source of a disclosure has horns and carries a trident. All that is of interest is Collins actions as a “supposedly” elected pubic servant. Note the last two words “public servant” NOT “self servant”.

        Oh and to any morons calling me a leftie I have as low an opinion of Labour as I do National. And to be honest politicians in general. Its the “system” that needs fixing, forget about any one party.

        • Populuxe1 5.1.3.1
          8 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

          In which case, I can do you a great deal on this bridge…
          *Confirmation bias alert*

  6. fender 6
    8 July 2013 at 10:08 am

    With the MSM getting their scoops from blog sites nowadays I expect to see this hit the fan like the ‘manban’ very soon.

    • TheContrarian 6.1
      8 July 2013 at 10:10 am

      Roger was banned for breaking Wikipedia rules and lying about it. Nothing to do with Collins. His banning and the content of Judith Collins wikipedia page are two separate issues.

      • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 10:16 am

        Sure, but seriously, who gives a fuck about Roger? Is he a public figure? Oh noes, he broke the wiki rulz! Clearly a monster.

        • TheContrarian 6.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 10:22 am

          His “campaign” is bullshit. An unreliable narrator, a liar who white-washed his own Wikipedia history, pretended to be two different people and got caught out and banned.

          He has no credibility on the issue and seems to be banking on the fact no one will actually check out his claims. He used self referential citations, several different accounts and is now playing his banning as if it were to do with some Collins campaign.

          • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 10:37 am

            I Know! It’s a scandal. History’s greatest monster. Clearly those edits tidying up the scandalous claims that Collins is right wing are legitimate as all hell.

            This alleged man should be shot right in the balls. He is the real story here, what sort of a man would bullshit his account on wikipedia?

            If dante was writing now there would surely be tenth circle of hell for such acts of bastardry.

            • TheContrarian 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 10:41 am

              So his story is bullshit. His blog post is bullshit. This blog post is bullshit.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                8 July 2013 at 10:43 am

                Yes, because if someone does things wrong on wikipedia, then everything everyone else does on wikipedia is legit, obvs.

                • TheContrarian …
                  8 July 2013 at 10:50 am

                  Don’t be daft.

                  His entire blog post is factually inaccurate to the point of outright lying. There is no evidence of a whitewash by Collins or her staff and the only whitewashing is by Roger himself.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    8 July 2013 at 10:57 am

                    Clearly that Clarke person is totes legit. Because Roger is History’s greatest monster as shown by his wikipedia history of shame.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 11:00 am

                      Clarke being a Collins fanboy =/= working for Collins.

                      “Because Roger is History’s greatest monster as shown by his wikipedia history of shame.”

                      Again, don’t be fucking daft. He made up a whole lot a shit and passed it off as fact. It’s bullshit, his whole post is bullshit as is this Standard post which just reasserts his crap as truth.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      8 July 2013 at 11:09 am

                      Oh Noes. etc.

                      The wikipedia epistimolgy of fucking ignoring the bleedingly obvious is strong in you, contrarian.

                      Do they give you a badge?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 11:11 am

                      TC, notwithstanding Brooking’s credibility problem, there are genuine concerns.

          • Sable 6.1.1.1.2
            8 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

            Even if you are right this does not detract from Collins antics.

            • TheContrarian 6.1.1.1.2.1
              8 July 2013 at 1:17 pm

              “Even if you are right this does not detract from Collins antics.”

              So we have gone from making accusations about Collins and her team to statements of fact?

              And it isn’t a matter of me being right or not. All the evidence is freely available in Wikipedias own logs. It is right there in black and white – Brooking engaged in sock-puppetry and lied about it while pimping himself and his own POV.

        • Populuxe1 6.1.1.2
          8 July 2013 at 1:22 pm

          Clearly you Eddie gives enough of a fuck about Roger to give his claims credence and therefore you give a fuck about Roger as the basis of the accusation against Collins. Sounds like lots of people around here give a fuck about Roger.

      • felix 6.1.2
        8 July 2013 at 10:23 am

        “His banning and the content of Judith Collins wikipedia page are two separate issues.”

        Yep. How about you have a go at addressing the latter then, seeing as the former isn’t really relevant to anyone except Roger and Wikipedia.

        • Populuxe1 6.1.2.1
          8 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

          How is reliability of source not relevant?

          • weka 6.1.2.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

            Pop, you’ve just made the point below that all Wiki changes are recorded and visible. So the blogger is kind of irrelevant to this post. The issue is whether Collins’ staff have been editing the page, and whether they’ve done that with bias towards the Minister.

      • Ant 6.1.3
        8 July 2013 at 10:24 am

        So why not talk about the Collins pages being sanitised rather than getting into hysterics over that Roger guy?

  7. Anne 7
    8 July 2013 at 10:24 am

    Roger was banned for breaking Wikipedia rules.

    I wouldn’t have a clue if he did or didn’t, but accepting TC’s word, then “Roger” was a bit of a naughty boy.

    But Judith Collins purging wikipedia pages on subjects she doesn’t want the public to know about is, in my view, an infinitely worse scandal. The more power she thinks she has, the madder she becomes. There’s been a few people like that in our history books and it never ended well for them.

    • TheContrarian 7.1
      8 July 2013 at 10:27 am

      “But Judith Collins purging wikipedia pages on subjects she doesn’t want the public to know about is, in my view, an infinitely worse scandal.”

      No evidence of this.

      • wtl 7.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 10:40 am

        Is that no evidence meaning you had a thorough look at the edit history of the wikipedia entries and couldn’t find any evidence OR you have decided that “Roger” was untrustworthy and don’t believe him, but haven’t actually looked into the issue yourself?

        • TheContrarian 7.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 10:43 am

          If you look at the links provided you’ll note I have looked quite closely into this and there is no evidence of any whitewashing by Collins or her team and Roger is lying.

          It is all in the Wikipedia logs if you care to look.

          • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 10:44 am

            *laugh*

          • wtl 7.1.1.1.2
            8 July 2013 at 10:44 am

            Ok, fair enough, I’ll take your word for it.

            • TheContrarian 7.1.1.1.2.1
              8 July 2013 at 10:51 am

              You don’t need to take my word for it. It is plain to see in Wikipedias own logs.

              • weka …
                8 July 2013 at 12:29 pm

                I can’t be bothered checking further, but the links that TC provided do show that a staffer edit the Wiki page to change the photo of Collins. Did they do anything else? I can’t tell.

                Someone removed the content obviously, but do we know who? One of the Wiki nerds says it was because the content breached some of Wiki’s guidelines. I don’t know Wiki’s editing system well enough to know if the removals are valid or more likely to be politically motivated.

      • Populuxe1 7.1.2
        8 July 2013 at 1:08 pm

        It’s rather sweet that someone would assume Judith Collins had any sway over Wikipedia at all.

    • QoT 7.2
      8 July 2013 at 9:10 pm

      “Roger” was a bit of a naughty boy.

      Just as an analogy, as someone who has spent a paltry amount of time in the back end of Wikipedia, what Brookings did was tantamount to someone coming onto The Standard, posting, getting banned by lprent for breaking our rules, and then trying to return and do the same thing under another name.

      If you’ve ever seen the results of this, you’ll know lprent doesn’t take kindly to people subverting his rules, and neither does the Wikipedia community.

      • TheContrarian 7.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 9:26 pm

        Add to that QoT writing a blog post concealing the reasons for said banning and implying that lprent was part of a larger scheme to cover-up information without offering any evidence.

  8. ghostrider888 8
    8 July 2013 at 11:07 am

    “‘What is Truth?”, retorted Pilate. – John 18:38

  9. One Anonymous Knucklehead 9
    8 July 2013 at 11:07 am

    Read the “talk” pages.

    Gadfium raises a concern that “a group of people who work together, perhaps in Collins’ office or as part of her electoral organisation” are involved in editing the page.

    • TheContrarian 9.1
      8 July 2013 at 11:35 am

      Indeed, “perhaps”, “maybe”, “possibly”.

      No IP logs correlate to Collin’s office and the idea that a group of right-wingers want to edit the page of Collins to reflect her in the best light isn’t shocking at all.

      What also isn’t shocking but is surprising is that the The Standard (or more specifically, Eddie) would post and link to something that is so completely fabricated and play it off as truth.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 11:41 am

        Lovely strawman. Gadfium refers to “her office or … electoral organisation”, not some other random group of trash.

        • TheContrarian 9.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 11:48 am

          It doesn’t matter what Gadfium thinks. He is making a speculation but that isn’t really an issue because both Brooking and The Standard are saying there has been a campaign revealed despite the fact no such thing has been revealed and Brooking has proven to be…economical with the truth.

          Nothing has been “revealed”.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 12:23 pm

            This is politics, though. Not a court of law. Here’s how this works;

            “Gadfium, a New-Zealand based administrator of Wikipedia, has today raised concerns that someone in Judith Collins electoral office has interfered with the web-based encyclopaedia’s article about her.

            After her embarrassing climb down in the Little/Mallard defamation case, Collins must have realised that vanity is an unattractive trait in a politician, and is expected to give staff members a bit of a tune up.”

            • TheContrarian 9.1.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 12:31 pm

              Yes he had a concern, it happens all the time on Wikipedia, but it is unsubstantiated and assertion.

              But the fact still remains that both Brooking and The Standard are saying there has been a campaign revealed despite the fact no such thing has been revealed and Brooking has proven to be economical with the truth (as well as engaging in the exact same antics he accuses Collins team of engaging in by creating an article about himself and link whoring his own business interests into articles. So he is also a hypocrite).

              • felix …
                8 July 2013 at 12:51 pm

                “TheContrarian, a known uptight commenter on political blogs, has today aroused suspicion among many readers that he may be closer than he has admitted to the Collins Wikipedia scandal that has been brewing all morning.”

                • fender …
                  8 July 2013 at 12:55 pm

                  +1

                • TheContrarian …
                  8 July 2013 at 12:55 pm

                  I’m Judith Collins.

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                    8 July 2013 at 1:00 pm

                    No. I’m Judith Collins.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 1:03 pm

                      Alright then Judith, tell your staffer to be nicer to Roger Brooking.
                      He is all butt hurt about being kicked off wikipedia for flagrant sock-puppetry, engaging in edit wars and shameless self promotion so could use a break.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      8 July 2013 at 1:08 pm

                      I will not. I will crush him.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

                      “Crush” lol.

                      Never actually got round to crushing a car, did she?

                      Must’ve been too busy backing down from lawsuits and crying on tv.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      8 July 2013 at 1:32 pm

                      ..and now I will be obliged to crush you too, Felix.

                  • felix …
                    8 July 2013 at 1:01 pm

                    You wish.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      9 July 2013 at 11:18 pm

                      I think Judith was too busy whipping all the guys like Chris73 who got excited just thinking about her crushing cars.

  10. Psycho Milt 10
    8 July 2013 at 11:23 am

    Attempting to decide whether I hate Judith Collins worse than I hate professional wowsers…

    Hmm… Nope – can’t choose. It’s a toss-up. Assume they’re both lying.

    • ghostrider888 10.1
      8 July 2013 at 11:25 am

      good Assumption.

    • felix 10.2
      8 July 2013 at 11:42 am

      Two quick questions, Psycho:

      1. In what sense is Collins not a “professional wowser”?

      2. What is she lying about?

      • Psycho Milt 10.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 5:56 pm

        1. In what sense is Collins not a “professional wowser”?

        In the sense that actual professional wowsers like Brooking or Sellman seem to regard her as an opponent.

        2. What is she lying about?

        Pretty much whatever she’s talking about at any given moment.

        • felix 10.2.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 8:37 pm

          1. That startling bit of logic would imply that there are no professional boxers.

          2. What is she lying about in the context of your comment above? I wasn’t aware she’d commented on the matter.

  11. TheContrarian 11
    8 July 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Jesus man, it gets even stupider:

    “how does Judith Collins know what I’m doing on wikipedia? I don’t use my real name – I use a pseudonym. Does that mean the GCSB is watching me?”

    Yeah that or the fact you wrote a fucking article about yourself on your userpage:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Offender9000&diff=prev&oldid=464737085

  12. Populuxe1 12
    8 July 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Argh, the stupid. It burns. Wikipedia’s self-monitoring editorial proccess is sufficiently robust that any silly nonsense put in without citation or redacted inappropriately will sort itself out in the wash in a couple of days. Big fucking deal. That’s every day stuff on Wikipedia, that’s how it’s supposed to work. There are no secrets, all changes are recorded in the Talk and Edit sections (often the best reading).

    And if, *if*, IF, Collins’ staffers were making changes to her Wiki page, that would be entirely within the perview of the office of her Press Secretary because that’s their job. If not them, then probably some fanboys in the Young Nats would do it. That’s the whole point of Wikipedia – anyone can edit it. Any partisan feelings I have about it are entirely beside the point because I know for a fact that other parties do the same and I would be very much surprised if it wasn’t the same for all of them.

    This is silly.

    • weka 12.1
      8 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

      “that would be entirely within the perview of the office of her Press Secretary because that’s their job.”

      Not so sure about that – the Press Secretary got asked not to edit that particular page. But even if it were their job, doesn’t it depend on what they remove and what they replace it with? The original claim (for whatever it’s worth) is that a long piece by a known justice activist got removed and replaced with a short stub.

      • TheContrarian 12.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 1:34 pm

        “The original claim (for whatever it’s worth) is that a long piece by a known justice activist got removed and replaced with a short stub.”

        Some the reasons are listed here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_aid_in_New_Zealand

      • Populuxe1 12.1.2
        8 July 2013 at 1:36 pm

        “The original claim (for whatever it’s worth) is that a long piece by a known justice activist got removed and replaced with a short stub.”

        Also not an uncommon thing on Wikipedia where there are issues of entry length or POV bias

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

        • weka 12.1.2.1
          8 July 2013 at 2:01 pm

          I understand how Wiki works Pop. I don’t know what happened in this particular case.

          • Populuxe1 12.1.2.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 2:08 pm

            That’s cool, Weka, but there’s obviously a few here who don’t judging from the asumptions and butt hurt

            • felix 12.1.2.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 2:14 pm

              Care to point out some of those assumptions, Pop?

              Try to stick to the ones on the page if you would, rather than the ones only in your mind.

      • insider 12.1.3
        8 July 2013 at 1:42 pm

        Is it that much different from the press sec calling a paper seeking a correction? No one would question that as a legitimate activity. It’s more transparent on Wikipedia.

        • felix 12.1.3.1
          8 July 2013 at 1:45 pm

          And hence we get to discuss it.

          • TheContrarian 12.1.3.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 1:55 pm

            Discuss an accusation stated without evidence by someone who lied and continues to lie about their own activity? What on earth for?

            • felix 12.1.3.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 1:58 pm

              You smell like fear.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1.3.1.1.2
              8 July 2013 at 2:06 pm

              Gadfium tells lies?

              • TheContrarian …
                8 July 2013 at 2:07 pm

                No Brooking lies – Gadfium doesn’t make any claims, only makes a speculation

                • felix …
                  8 July 2013 at 2:11 pm

                  …which you’ve spent all day trying to get people to stop discussing.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    8 July 2013 at 2:17 pm

                    Why don’t you address Brookings claims?

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 5:17 pm

                      Because he’s of no interest. Get over him.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 5:20 pm

                      I didn’t say address Brooking, I said address his claims.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 5:49 pm

                      His claims are of no particular interest to me either.

                      In case you haven’t noticed, I pretty much write about stuff I’m interested in.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    8 July 2013 at 2:23 pm

                    You are so full of shit, felix. Contrarian has done no such thing – s/he has presented a compelling argument with verifiable reasoning as to why this is probably a storm in a teacup and a bit of a beat up, and all you can do is throw your toys when you or anyone who shares your confirmation bias is corrected. It’s the internet – the only people here who can stop you discussing anything are the moderators. Stop acting like a child.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 2:38 pm

                      Count Contrarian’s comments in this thread.

                      Then tell me how many are about Brooking, and how many are about the topic at hand.

                      Then go fuck yourself, again.

                      Then have a tanty about how awful I am.

                      Then go fuck yourself again, crying this time.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 2:40 pm

                      Brooking is the one making the claim and his claim has no validity and neither does he as the claimant. That is the topic addressed and until evidence is presented to support Brookings claims the topic has no validity.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 2:54 pm

                      I wonder if Collins has her staff editing Wiki pages.

                      It seems likely. A very well respected wiki editor has raised concerns along those lines, and it seems that Collins’ press secretary changed their wiki name from one which clearly identified them to one that doesn’t.

                      Of course it’s not proof, but it is evidence that some might find interesting. Where there’s smoke etc.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 3:05 pm

                      Changing your wiki name brings over your whole editing history so you can’t hide your previous edits and the press sec has made no further edits to the Collins page since.

                      “I wonder if Collins has her staff editing Wiki pages”

                      Quite possibly, it would be surprising if no one had. I would be surprised if no one at Labour, National, Greens or any other political party had made edits to their own or other parties pages. Not likely to be staffers during work time as your IP is logged and edits coming from parliament would be reverted. A staffer in their own time who likes the MP they work for is allowed, as a private citizen, to make any edit they wish as long as it is sourced and verifiable.

                      But it is still speculation. The claims made by Brooking which are repeated here indicate that some sort of campaign has been revealed which is based on pure speculation from a person who has acted in the same manner, been banned from Wikipedia, lied about their editing history and has all but accused the GCSB of spying on him without actually disclosing to his readers he wrote a fucking article about himself.

                      So you’ll forgive me I wait until a more robust piece of evidence is presented from a more reliable source. It is well and good to make a claim but the intellectually honest position is to wait for confirmation before trumpeting about some sort of plot.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 3:26 pm

                      “the press sec has made no further edits to the Collins page since.”

                      You have literally no way of knowing that. All you know is that that one handle went quiet on the topic.

                      “Not likely to be staffers during work time as your IP is logged and edits coming from parliament would be reverted.”

                      The fact is you can’t say whether Judith’s press secretary, any of her other staff, or any other National Party employee or private contractor has been paid to edit pages from any of the many possible locations they might be working from at any given time.

                      As one very well respected wiki editor pointed out, it appears that several brand new identities appeared simultaneously, and despite being brand new handles they appeared to have a detailed knowledge of wiki procedure and culture, and great interest in pages concerning Collins.

                      Call it speculation. So what? I have no obligation to you to meet any arbitrary standard of evidence that you make up.

                      It’s not far between dots though, innit.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  8 July 2013 at 2:18 pm

                  Do you agree that it is inappropriate for politicians to edit – or employ the editors of – their own Wikipedia entries? A simple yes or no will suffice.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    8 July 2013 at 2:22 pm

                    Not just politicians, editing ones own Wikipedia entry is conflict of interest in any case.

                    Now you, do you think it is OK for Brooking to lie about his own involvement on Wikipedia? A simple yes or no will suffice.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 2:35 pm

                      Yeah, it’s fine with me. He’s a nobody, his credibility or lack of it means nothing to me, he isn’t Minister of Justice.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      8 July 2013 at 2:38 pm

                      Good thing that no one has provided any evidence Collins has edited her own page then.

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 2:40 pm

                      “editing ones own Wikipedia entry is conflict of interest in any case.”

                      You should tell Pop. He thinks if you get your press sec to do it it’s fine because that’s their job.

        • weka 12.1.3.2
          8 July 2013 at 2:03 pm

          “Is it that much different from the press sec calling a paper seeking a correction? No one would question that as a legitimate activity. It’s more transparent on Wikipedia.”

          Hmm, more like if the Press Secretary had editing rights at a paper. Hence the need for more care and transparency.

    • felix 12.2
      8 July 2013 at 1:43 pm

      lol Pop.

      “because that’s their job”

      So I guess if anyone asks Collins whether her staff are editing wiki pages to make her look less right-wing she’ll be totes upfront and say “Yep, that’s part of their job.”

      Or maybe she’ll just have a wee cry like she did when Gower asked her how she racked up an $11,000 petrol bill in a car she doesn’t use.

      • Populuxe1 12.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 1:48 pm

        See insider’s comment at 12.1.3 and stop wasting my time.

        • felix 12.2.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 1:53 pm

          See my reply to insider and go fuck yourself.

          • Populuxe1 12.2.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

            Diddums. You must need a nappy change.

            • felix 12.2.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 2:10 pm

              Sure whatevs.

              Stop drop and (t)roll.

              • Populuxe1 …
                8 July 2013 at 2:34 pm

                QED

                • felix …
                  8 July 2013 at 2:45 pm

                  Either you didn’t understand my comment (not unusual) or you don’t know what QED means.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    8 July 2013 at 4:54 pm

                    I accused you of being a baby. You responded with a purile dummyspit.
                    Quod Erat Demonstrandum

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 5:03 pm

                      whoosh

                      As usual.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      8 July 2013 at 5:08 pm

                      You’re getting to be almost as trite as Morrissey – I can’t be bothered communicating with you anymore

                    • felix …
                      8 July 2013 at 5:14 pm

                      and yet…

                      But that’s ok Pop. I probably wouldn’t want to communicate with someone who kept pointing out when I was lying, trooling, displaying ignorance, failing logic, and being a twat and a sook about it to boot.

                    • Morrissey …
                      8 July 2013 at 6:11 pm

                      You’re getting to be almost as trite as Morrissey – I can’t be bothered communicating with you anymore

                      While we all appreciate that you are having difficulty with felix, would you mind taking a little time off trying to swat that gadfly and tell us exactly how this writer—i.e., moi—is “trite”?

  13. aerobubble 13
    8 July 2013 at 2:17 pm

    Guns roll out paying dividends, as more guns appear to being used by criminals and a massive robbery of a arsenal of guns takes place. There’s a very good reason why specialized units should use firearms and the average police office shouldn’t, its called mutual assured destruction, the arms race brought upon us by Judith Collins.

  14. weka 14
    8 July 2013 at 2:42 pm

    This would have to be the stupidest comments thread I have read on ts for a very long time.

  15. Rosetinted 15
    8 July 2013 at 5:06 pm

    I wanna look at Pascalls Bookie here but keep getting taken to Open Mike 1/7! Waaah.

    • Rosetinted 15.1
      8 July 2013 at 5:10 pm

      Then I got faced with server barrier then went back but my comment not showing then went to Home to refresh and my comment was showing. Life gets teejus don’t it.

  16. Rosetinted 16
    8 July 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Same again – connection closed by server. And I notice each time there is no edit function when I finally get back to my comment after half a minute. What now?

    edit – I hate intermittent faults.

  17. UglyTruth 17
    8 July 2013 at 8:49 pm

    I just posted this on Roger Brooking’s blog, I assume that it won’t be visible until it is moderated.

    Wikipedia is not a neutral POV platform, especially on matters related to public policy. For example there was William Connolly’s use of Wikipedia as a pro-AGW platform, and Wikipedia’s current misrepresentation of terms of law relating to the common law constraints on government. Despite his denials Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales is connected to Wikileaks via Michael Davis and Wikia, and there is a significant political bias against the Arab Spring regimes in the Wikileaks material.

    In June of 2012 I wrote to Collins regarding the admitted fraud of a Nelson district court judge regarding assumption of personal jurisdiction. She did not contest that the fraud existed and communicated no interest either in seeking a remedy for it or in taking action to prevent it happening in the future. This pertains to the fundamental conflict between the NZ parliament and the common law, which is a topic that I’ve documented on my website, http://www.actsinjunction.info

  18. captain hook 18
    9 July 2013 at 2:34 pm

    This a government of liteweights, carpetbaggers, grifters and hucksters not to mention intellectual pygmies and nothing will change that except the next election when they will get their just deserts and the sooner the better.
    and Felix.
    thanx for the free entertainment.
    Its a perfect illustration.

  19. Murray Olsen 19
    9 July 2013 at 11:34 pm

    Roger Brooking stands out because he is a voice for the voiceless. We need people like him, exposing what happens in the dungeons of our society. Judith Collins doesn’t stand out at all. She’s just another nasty Tory practitioner of lowest common denominator politics. Roger fights for justice; Collins fights to change the very definition of the word. We need more like him and far, far fewer of her. I don’t give a damn if he’s breached the Wikipedia code of practice. The good he does far outweighs it. Using more than one user name is nothing in comparison with denying prisoners their medication, for not paying Bain compensation, or for building new prisons for SERCO to profit from the misfortunes of the poor. I know whose side I’m on.

    • Gareth 19.1
      12 July 2013 at 11:46 am

      In this case, he didn’t expose anything. He made stuff up.

      I’ve always supported Labour and now the Greens, but I’ll oppose Judith Collins and her policies without him on my team thanks. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

      When I read the article, I went and checked out the edit history on Wikipedia myself. What he said happened, didn’t happen.

      He may do other good stuff, but about this? He’s lying. I don’t like liars.

Links to post