Hard News: 202.22.18.241
143 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
The person hiding behind IP address 202.22.18.241 works at Parliament in the IT department.
I have full name, suburb, age, date of birth, photo.
Looks like somebody is going to be fired.
[Look, this is getting out of hand. Several other people have emailed me with same reverse lookup information. It's the IT guy, FFS. The fact that his name is associated with the IP address does not mean he has made the Wikipedia edits, which are the work of multiple people -- although, as I've said in today's post, it looks to me as if there are a handful of especially prolific individuals at Parliament. - RB]
-
Looks like somebody is going to be fired.
are you assuming that their employer didnt know what they were doing? or in fact that they were not working under instruction?
-
I have full name, suburb, age, date of birth, photo.
Heh - could I prevail upon you to email me those details? Not going to do anything with them, just curious as this person has commented on my blog in the past & would appear to live quite close to me.
-
I'm not sure, but it sure would be satisfying to see someone at Parliment dismissed for unacceptable conduct such as posting on various forums during the course of their working day using taxpayers money. A little extreme, but this is exactly what is happening.
and editing wikipedia entries associated with New Zealand MPs, you have to as the question, which party is this person biased towards?
Steven
-
Andrew, I can give you a link that will give you some of this info.
What is your email address? -
It would be more common to tag unsourced material with ["citation needed"]. There are citations available for the assertions on English's position, at least in so far as his voting record and Parliamentary speeches go. So it's not exactly libellous.
No Russell, read WP:BLP. The material doesn't need to be outright libellous to be contentious (adj: likely to cause argument or quarrelling). If citations are available then add them, otherwise it has to go.
-
Steven, if you click on the little envelope that's three or four lines below my name...
-
unacceptable conduct such as posting on various forums during the course of their working day
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (See what I did there? Thread convergence!)
-
I'm dubious that Steven is correct in his identification, I've been seeing that IP address for years & the person fingered hasn't been at parliamentary service that long apparently.
-
Um, no Paul. I'd like Mike Huckabee, for example, to get it into his fucking fool head that the President of the United States swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States not the Bible as understood by the Southern Baptist Convention. (Or fundamentally erroneous heretics, as they're affectionately called in my house. :) I'm very relaxed about living in a secular parliamentary democracy which defends and values religious freedom; rather than a theocracy, even if it happened to be one run according to Catholic canon law.
Actually Craig, I can't quite figure out if we agree or disagree here.
After reflecting on my comment last night and the bit about Trudeau, I think I stand by my original comment with a bit of a caveat.
I interpret Trudeau's statement as saying "if the needs of my country come into conflict with the values of my religion, I must choose the needs of my country". Too right, the country elected him after all. Power to him for understanding the basis of a secular society. The opposite, to my way of thinking, is "the needs of my country can never come into conflict with the values of my church".
It seems to me the separation of powers makes it very hard for a US president to govern in that way, no matter how Bush has tried.
Bill English could sacrifice goats and worship the Edmonds Cook Book for all I care. As long as he governs for the people (not the goat) if/when he becomes PM/Min of Fin
-
It kind of makes me sad that mysterious Parliamentary posters don't make some attempt to tricky, aside from not using their real name. It really detracts from the "faceless bastards in the Beehive are controlling our thoughts" meme.
-
Well duh. Editing Wikipedia well isn't easy -- we don't want everyone who uses it as a reference to be editing. The idea that this somehow invalidates the process is silly.
Indeed. Just as I'm reasonably certain Slate has a editorial hierarchy. If I want to quibble about something in an article, I can e-mail the author the author or post a comment on a relevant discussion board. And one of the great things about an on-line zine like Slate is that errors can be corrected, or stories updated very quickly. Doesn't mean that Slate is any less valuable because that process is mediated.
-
worship the Edmonds Cook Book
Now *that's* a religion I could wholeheartedly support.
-
Yes Gareth, it's Wikipedia policy to encourage deleting anything unsourced and potentially contentious from articles about living people. A good Wikipedia biography (for example George W. Bush) has citations for just about everything.
It would be more common to tag unsourced material with ["citation needed"]. There are citations available for the assertions on English's position, at least in so far as his voting record and Parliamentary speeches go. So it's not exactly libellous.
As I said, I'm no intent-of-Wiki guru, but the link to their policy on biographies of living people provided earlier in the thread does specifically state that "citation needed" is not acceptable in these cases.
If Bill English's Parliamentary speeches specifically state the link between his political policy stances and his religion then it would seem acceptable to have that info in his articlre general media perspective than Wiki specifically and understand that some people have defined and well-thought-through definitions of what should and shouldn't be included there and how it differs...e with that reference. Regardless, I think his policy positions and voting records should be included and cited.Of course I'm coming at this from a mo
-
Blech?! Should read:
As I said, I'm no intent-of-Wiki guru, but the link to their policy on biographies of living people provided earlier in the thread does specifically state that "citation needed" is not acceptable in these cases.
If Bill English's Parliamentary speeches specifically state the link between his political policy stances and his religion then it would seem acceptable to have that info in his article with that reference. Regardless, I think his policy positions and voting records should be included and cited.Of course I'm coming at this from a more general media perspective than Wiki specifically and understand that some people have defined and well-thought-through definitions of what should and shouldn't be included there and how it differs...
-
The person hiding behind IP address 202.22.18.241 works at Parliament in the IT department.
I have full name, suburb, age, date of birth, photo.
Looks like somebody is going to be fired.
That's a disturbing post. How uncomfortable that people feel it's their role to look up people on the internet and then make threats about their employment.
-
__The person hiding behind IP address 202.22.18.241 works at Parliament in the IT department.
I have full name, suburb, age, date of birth, photo.
Looks like somebody is going to be fired.__
That's a disturbing post. How uncomfortable that people feel it's their role to look up people on the internet and then make threats about their employment.
It's also COMPLETELY MISGUIDED.
There are multiple people behind that address. I very strongly suspect that the IT guy is not the one making the edits.
-
I very strongly suspect that the IT guy is not the one making the edits.
I'm quite certain he's not.
-
When I used my hotmail address during a rainy lunch break at work to ask a question of United Future I received a vailed threat in response.
-
I'm interested to know more about these "evangelical atheists" you speak of, Craig. The atheists I know (and that's a lot) keep their views to themselves, except when someone - an individual, or the state - is trying to force religiosity on them, or invoke some religious power in their name.
i.e., Atheists will defend their views, and defend secularism, but I don't see how these defensive positions could be equated with evangelism. Perhaps you have different experiences?
I would have thought that atheists don't have much reason to impose their views on others. Note: this is distinct from defending secularism, which many religious believers of different stripes also think is a good idea. It is also distinct from entering into debate with religionists, where all concerned consent to that debate.
-
dc-red - surely you can recognise piety knows no bounds whatever the belief structure being upheld.
-
It's also COMPLETELY MISGUIDED.
There are multiple people behind that address. I very strongly suspect that the IT guy is not the one making the edits
and frankly, the suggestion that public servants should be prevented from using social media like wikipedia is both miserly and mean.
how about running that wiki-user-checker over the bnz or state insurance?
those guys are spending your coin too.
-
and frankly, the suggestion that public servants should be prevented from using social media like wikipedia is both miserly and mean.
how about running that wiki-user-checker over the bnz or state insurance?
I strongly believe they should be using and contributing to social media. I'm just hoping the main point about transparency in the case of more political edits doesn't get lost here.
It'd be very easy to address and I hope someone does it.
-
I'm just hoping the main point about transparency in the case of more political edits doesn't get lost here.
absolutely. one of the reasons i keep using my real name in forums, despite the arrival of numerous veiled email threats from people like "steve", is that i want to keep my actions transparent.
i'd advise my public service colleagues in parliament to do the same.
-
Che Tibby, are you referring to me in the above post?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.