An anonymous commentator under my post was thoughtful enough to update Power's entry on Wikipedia
which didn't go down too well with someone over in WikiLand...
"I and a few others, watch out for hostile groups trying to hijack Wikipedia features to promote themselves. It is known from other websites that you have a very hostile vendetta against Power. Your organisation should express its views in another article. I gather you believe that the 7 July 2005 London bombing tragedy was played by actors pretending to be injured, or missing the point that there have been 22 bombs on the London underground since 1885? The ‘Julyseventh’ group who inserted the previous last sentence in the article about Peter Power have been inaccurate and malicious in their intent, as opposed to just informative. Their addition has therefore been removed.You are adding nothing of value to this article, expect to suit your purposes that I and others consider malicious. You are part of the 'julyseventh'campaign has a very hostile vendetta against Power (see many other websites) and you clearly seek to use Wikipedia to further this by adding valueless/malicious additions. Please stop doing this--Martinfud (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)..."
There's been plenty more Power-related goings on behind the scenes at Wikipedia, including a fair old slab of probable sock puppetry
What is clear from reading the exchanges is that the burden of proof demanded from people who dissent against officially sanctioned viewpoints, theories and, um, biographies is a lot higher than that demanded of pundits who are given free-rein to push fascistic fear-mongering nonsense on national TV
I mention these goings-on just on the offchance that 'anon' doesn't realise that he's started a small WikiWar™ and would like to take the opportunity to put the record straight about J7T NOT being the originators of the original edit, as they have been accused of being by someone with their hand up a sock's arse
An actor depicting what Peter Power might look like if he or a friend of his were editing a Wikipedia entryAs for the accusation that vendettas are being waged...
I can't speak for J7T or anon but there are only two reasons why I am interested in Peter Power...
1. He's on TV a lot selling what I believe to be a bullshit War on Terror paradigm which is steadily diminishing those freedoms he and his kind claim to be protecting. The supposed credibility of what he is selling derives largely from his reported professional history. That professional history is therefore clearly a matter of public interest
2. He went on radio on the day of the London bombings and claimed that his firm was carrying out a terrorism response drill at exactly the same time and in exactly the same stations as the 7/7 bombs. This, I believe, means that either a hugely improbable fluke took place, Power's firm had some prior knowledge of the planned attacks on London, or he is a bullshitter who was plugging his firm whilst the bodies of the victims of 7/7 were still warm. I don't pretend to know what the answer is but anyone concerned with 7/7 and its repercussions would probably like see Power's claims investigated, by the police or the mainstream media. So far, they appear not to have been and matey continues to crop up on the State Broadcasting Company banging away about the 'New Normal' uncontested
This isn't the first time an anonymous commentator on this blog has posted something a little contentious on Wikipedia. A while back someone (I'm guessing the same someone who posted the Power edit) created a Wikipedia entry for that other bunch of creepy nutsacks Common Purpose. It's heartening to note that the folks over at Common Purpose have been offended by some of the things Internet Conspiraloons have been saying about them and they recently posted a rebuttal which makes some vague hints about legal action without going so far as to announcing they are going to take any. More on CP and other fun Nu-World 'opinion shaping' outfits such as Editorial Intelligence another time
In the meantime, nice one(s) 'anon' but please be aware that there are folks out there keen to rip into J7T whenever it puts a foot wrong or can be misrepresented as having put a foot wrong - if you read through the discussion over at Wiki I think you'll understand what I mean
.
29 comments:
[my2pence]
Looking at the current protected article, it's a bit thin really, so the detail of suspension seems a bit irrelevant (regardless of factuality), and the dorset police reference is out of place tagged on the end.
As an observer and not a Wiki!Elite, the dorset police part of his career should be included in the part his career is described.
The suspension however should really go under a different section such as "controversies" just like those famed televangelists and such. In the "controversies section the Radio 4 interview could then be included. Unless of course Wiki!Elite deem the BBC to be an "antagonistic source".
As far as attacking Peter Power, the protagonists defend Power just as viciously, it seems they want to control the perception readers gather of Power at the expense of the complete facts.
It would be like removing reference to civilian casualties because they might lead people to form a negative opinion about the Iraq war.
[/my2pence]
Hypothetically, Peter Power could have told you personally that his secret hobby is poking badgers with spoons, and he may even have shown you photographs of himself poking said badgers, or invited you along to watch a bout of badger-poking, but even so you could not detail any of it on this page. If, however, Power appeared on the cover of Badger Spoon-Poking Monthly - or better, a report in The Times about the little known hobby of badger-poking - then what those publications report could be detailed here
@alexf - just between you and me the edit to PP's wikipedia entry did need cleaning up but, as you point out, the interesting part is the nature of the reaction
@anon - surely someone's getting mixed up with former Labour MP, former cabinet minister and legendary badger poker Ron Davies?
The Wikipedia page on Mr Power is either a profile of Peter Power and his 'accolades', or it's not.
If it is, one of his 'accolades' is that of being suspended from the Dorset Police -- after taking a backwards and sideways step from a thriving career in the Metropolitan Police -- for a period of six months, pending an internal investigation regarding some untoward behaviour. Following the internal investigation, Power retired on the grounds of 'ill health' and a file about him and his activities was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, in turn, works for the CPS.
End of.
For clarity:
The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.
Just because the stories of Power's suspension and DPP file are buried in newspaper archives and no journalist has, in nearly three years, bothered to check out the background and history of the man that happened to be rehearsing what we are told happened on 7/7, is also neither here nor there.
It does, however, tell us a lot about journalists.
Whether the article's original creator, who admits to being a real life acquaintance of Power, or the sock puppet set-up in the last day or two to support Power's 'acquaintance', approves of Power's past, as it is documented in newspaper archives, or not, is also neither here nor there.
It's also interesting to note that Power's purveyors on Wikipedia use a not entirely dissimilar method of argument to when Power himself commented on the J7 web site, a comment that was bizarrely left after We Are Change UK confronted him.
Crisis management? You betcha.
One of the sock puppets made a reasonable comment that including mention of PP's time in Dorset without listing all his other accolades resulted in an unbalanced entry
and Mr Socky's solution?
Cut out the Dorset reference
an interestingly minimalist approach to biography compilation
This chunk of Wikisockery is pretty special too...
I’ve been looking at why Cmain|talk] from the July 7 action group is so keen to change what was a perfectly acceptable article that I think Patrick56 first put up about Power. This seems to be happening more and more where Wikipedia is massaged to suit the purpose of any organisation keen to use it as a platform to promote their own message, rather than just be unbiased and informative. July 7 action group have been having a real personal dig against Power for ages, simply because he ran an exercise on 7/7 with a very similar scenario to the real event – and had the balls to admit it (surely if he was on the inside track he would never do that?) and because he’s not going to jeopardise his client by revealing their name he must be guilty of something, or so July 7 think. I agree with Patrick56: Just leave the article as it was without deliberately dragging up some distant, irrelevant and unnecessary story from 15 years ago miles from London, just to harm Power. Cmain|talk] is wrong when he says “the significance of the suspension is hard to judge. Patrick56 asserts it is less newsworthy than a minor traffic offence, but that is not public knowledge because the alleged offence has never been disclosed”. Patrick56 (who unlike July 7) says he has met Power, made the point that Power was never charged, summonsed or disciplined and probably left the force himself and was not dismissed. At least with a traffic offence someone was actually summonsed to end up in court, which is a lot more than Power ever was as far as I can see. I’ve given this a lot of thought and I think this is just a rather spiteful and unnecessary action by Cmain|talk] and should not be included. Why the witch hunt Cmain|talk]?--Martinfud (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Simply? What's fucking simple about that?
How does Power's original quote on 7/7 go, something like...
'We were actually running an exercise... based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations that happened this morning. So I still have the hairs on my head standing upright'
Simple? My arse
Maybe someone should stick that 7/7 quote into his Wikipedia entry
or maybe that's not relevant, well-sourced or important enough
Stef said...
or maybe that's not relevant, well-sourced or important enough
With that sort of attitude, you're ready to be a Wikipedia editor!
BTW, the exact quote is:
"...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!"
Quoting sock puppet number 1: "simply because he ran an exercise on 7/7 with a very similar scenario to the real event."
Of course, that sort of thing could happen to anyone.
Let's hope nobody remembers that age old problem, that goes back to around the time of the earliest magistrates and the Bow Street Runners, when drunkards were first employed to protect the ruling classes and property from the great unwashed masses, Bent Coppers.
I made the original edit to his blog to include the Dorset episode and you're right, I had no idea it had caused all this fuss! I don;t see what the problem is though, it's a fact about Peter Power's professional background so why shouldn't it go on his Wikipedia page?
Yes his biography is very thin and the fact looks tacked on, but due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, that's for someone else to fix.
And yes J7 were definitely not the originators of the edit, but thankfully J7 did correct my initial error in saying he was dismissed rather than suspended. Patrick56 seems to want Power's to be a fluff piece for his acquaintance. Isn't somebody creating a Wikipedia page for someone they know personally slightly dodgy in itself?
@anon
totally
By his own choice Power is a public figure and merits a decent sized entry on Wikipedia. If someone thinks his accolades are not given enough coverage they should be putting them in rather than removing stuff
the use of the word 'dismiss' was inappropriate but it was rapidly corrected
btw pls don't let this put you off adding material to wikipedia - it clearly does get noticed and it does sometimes encourage illuminating reactions
Last time I looked Jane Standley's wiki entry was a bit thin.
On another point, does anyone know if Freedom of Information Request answers are susceptible to Judicial Review?
Last time I looked Jane Standley's wiki entry was a bit thin.
lol
On the subject of Jane Standley, here she is responding to questions about her premonitory report.
There is a right of complaint with regard to FOI request responses. Whether or not FOI responses are subject to a judicial review, I don't know.
If you look closely enough you can see that actually the hairs on the back of his neck are not standing upright at all!
Classic quote from lwtc247:
http://lwtc247.wordpress.com/
Yes, a very good line
I note that looking at the CP wiki page history that it has been "defaced" by critics and then cleaned up rather a large number of times. As my Mother never said, If you can't "say something nice.."
RE: "Yes, a very good line" link and article.
It is of course one of those anomalies that once a Plod had checked in his tin badge he is free from any disciplinary action following him.
Another man who vanished pronto when threats of action appeared to loom was our old friend Shagger Hayman of the Met.
However when the HM Insopector of Constabulary remains in office when he oversaw the state employed assassins , victualled, suppklied with arms and explosives and paid by the State. It probably isn't that odd.
PS I thought Ron Davies was just "looking" at badgers, not poking them - but I amy be wrong.
I was Patrol Leader of the Badgers in 3rd Altrincham Scouts in the 50's and we never poked them. Nor were we aware that anybody did.
Since then my life has been badgerless, apart from a mild annoyance at never having figured why we use the phrase "bald as a badger".
National Identity Scheme Options Analysis Outcome (pristine)
Hello Peter.
http://tinyurl.com/2h4mvr
WikiWar - The Climate Front
Someone from Common Purpose is editing Wikipedia entries:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
whois.domaintools.com/217.150.113.250
Very stupid to start with spamming...
Something which might interested you:
Search for "SlimVirgin = Linda Mack"
Wikipedia, Lockerbie, MI5, Big Media - The whole burito!
And related to this, you might like to read a post or two here:
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/
Post a Comment