Robert Brokenshire Talk page – And how Orderinchaos and Timeshift9 are censoring it

In Uncategorized on August 8, 2010 by wikipedialeaks Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let me introduce you to Orderinchaos and Timeshift9. Together, within a matter of hourse they singlehandedly (1) (2) (3):
To this (current version):
Wondering what you’re missing from the censorship? Thought so:

Recommended changes

To prevent an “edit war”, I’m including recommended changes to this page:

  • MLC JP as honorary titlesYes check.svg Done
  • He states his personal mission as putting people and families first, and governments who seek power and control second. -As indexed from Not done: Read Timeshift9 comments below
  • His roles in ministry:Yes check.svg Done
    • Minister for Police, Correctional Services & Emergency ServicesYes check.svg Done
    • Minister for GamblingYes check.svg Done
    • Minister for VolunteersYes check.svg Done
    • Shadow Minister for HealthYes check.svg Done
I agree the enlisting of ministry would be a good idea, analogous to Michelle Lensink. See what I can do. (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • His committee memberships:Yes check.svg Done
    • Public Works Committee – MemberYes check.svg Done
    • Select Committee on the Emergency Services Levy – MemberYes check.svg Done
    • Families SA Committee – MemberYes check.svg Done
    • Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee – MemberYes check.svg Done
    • Budget and Finance Committee – MemberYes check.svg Done
    • Taxi Industry in South Australia – ChairpersonYes check.svg Done
    • Certain Matters Relating to Horse Racing in South Australia – MemberYes check.svg Done
    • Natural Resources Committee – MemberYes check.svg Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by ID9283672385 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Non primary sourced content

I’m also compiling a list of non-official sourced content, particularly relating to policy. It seems non-noteworthy if it hasn’t even been newsworthy. Feel free to add to this. Content added already (archive):

  • [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Applications under FoI Act which may be relevant to claims of independenceYes check.svg Done
  • [11] Attacks on Rann spending to reduce spendingYes check.svg Done
  • [12] This article is a good reference for his switch to the FFP from the LibsYes check.svg Done
  • [13] Setting up the taxi committeeYes check.svg Done
  • [14] Opposition to major parties ploughing $700K per campaign electorateYes check.svg Done
  • [15] Statements Rann has turned his back on disabledYes check.svg Done
  • [16] Opposition to the abolition of the legislative councilYes check.svg Done
  • [17] Family First’s attempt to introduce an ICAC (independent corruption commission) to South AustraliaYes check.svg Done
  • [18] Forcing increased sittings for ParliamentYes check.svg Done
  • [19] Attempt with civil rights lawyer George Mancini to increase police transparency to make Secret Police Commissioner reports publicYes check.svg Done
  • [20] Build police academy at CheltenhamYes check.svg Done
  • [21] Police in schools programYes check.svg Done
  • [22] Better protection for policeYes check.svg Done
  • [23] Legislating two year for jail smugglersYes check.svg Done
  • [24] Increasing police presenceYes check.svg Done
  • [25] The pressing need to coerce big businesses to reduce water consumptionYes check.svg Done
  • [26] Forcing national takeover of the River MurrayYes check.svg Done
  • [27] Policy recommendations on solar panels and electric cars for renewable energyYes check.svg Done
  • [28] Brokenshire is pushing for proper driving training for the young, including developing a driver-training track, which could similarly used for “rev-heads” to take their aggression out on.Yes check.svg Done
  • [29] Brokenshire’s comments on Sandra Kanck’s one-child policyYes check.svg Done
  • [30] Call for a $1bn rural fund after years of neglect under Labor of rural and regional South AustraliaYes check.svg Done

Content still to be discussed for addition:

  • [31] Labor’s use of the FFP brand to steal votes from Libs
  • [32] Revelation of Rann’s legislation to get FoI on Liberal candidates, but not on Labor policy Not done for now: There may be WP:RECENT issues with inclusion of this, probably just a Rann stunt, which he will submit to once in oppositionMileyFan1990 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe others would like to add freely. ID9283672385 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:LAUNDRY list. Timeshift9 (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop using your elitist media management euphemismsWP:LAUNDRY applies to Wikipedia articles, not their talk pages. (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 is a case kids love here at University, but its interesting that some of you young folk notice free speech isn’t always as easy as it is prima facie. For instance, using an argumentum ad hominem technique, User:Timeshift9 attempted to euphemise the behaviour of another user as “unacceptable” and “[un]abl[e]”. As a result, any subsequent attempt by such user to attempt the page would result in what Timeshift9 regarded as a “ban”. Excellent media management tactic. (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the stub template because much of the to do list is already implemented. Please be aware in adding WP:RECENT content however. MileyFan1990 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added the facts template to some facts because (1) family first press releases; and (2) another wikipedia page, is not appropriate sources of citation. If someone could find a secondary source, this would be appreciated. (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee, look at that!

Seems like it was true, Brokenshire is indeed replacing Evans! Timeshift9 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was in the news a week or two ago. I’d much prefer to use an independent news source, but all I could find was the press release on the official FF site. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to recall a convo several months ago on this… Timeshift9 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9 (talk), out of curiosity, are you from the SA Parliament? I just find it interesting you “recall” a conversation regarding Robert Brokenshire’s replacement of Evans, as if you were a Parliamentary member/assistant.ID9283672385 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, look at that! Seems like Labor is a fraud, with all of those fake how-to-fake Family First cards. If Family First wasn’t as pov, I would’ve screwed Rann under (1) Trade Practices Act’ Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, (2) tort of passing off, and (3) criminal fraud with intent to gain. Note my rhetoric and abhorrence of User:Timeshift9‘s off-topic blabbering. (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 please do not go off-topic., please do not use rhetoric. (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

“Defecting” to the Family First Party

I think that the words “defected” to the Family First Party are too perspective-oriented. If you type “define:defect” into Google, you find definitions such as “the state of having rejected your religious beliefs or your political party or a cause (often in favor of opposing beliefs or causes)”. I think Brokenshire would likely contest that many of his pro-liberal beliefs probably haven’t changed, and that he just switched to the Family First Party. It would be as similarly incorrect to say a Labor MP “defected” to the Greens Party. (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See look here (,22606,24070079-2682,00.html), it talks about him “Mr Brokenshire surprised political observers when he switched to Family First last year to run for the federal seat of Kingston.” I would argue a POV problem. Also if you look on his official portfolio, it says he was not re-elected as a Liberal MP, which is probably why he switched to FFP, rather than actually switching parties whilst a MP (which would count as a defect). This is a question of nomenclature. (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Defect: To abandon or turn against; to cease or change one’s loyalty. Timeshift9 (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Word “defect” has been removed for now. Yes check.svg Done Because the word is hostile, it will not be included unless it is sourced, or author User:Timeshift9 further objects. (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed Timeshift9 comments

Can you please familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies. “He states his personal mission as putting people and families first, and governments who seek power and control second” – this WP:POV is plainly unacceptable, not to mention it’s from a primary source which tends not to be a WP:RS. I’d also mention WP:COI to you. Thanks. Timeshift9 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest there is WP:COI. I am not in any way associated with Family First nor Robert Brokenshire. However, I am disinclined to your status quo reversions. As I have read, there is a assume good faith policy too.ID9283672385 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That’s nice, but you’ve failed to respond to the content issues raised. Please keep away from WP:POV. Looking at the rest of the guidelines and looking at how other articles are worded will also help you along to understand the neutrality of content and wording required here on wikipedia. Thankyou. Timeshift9 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Failed to respond? Failed to respond to what? I’m sensing some media management here on behalf of User:Timeshift9. Should be interesting to see what political commentator Haydon Manning has to say. The politics professor here at the University of South Australia is laughing. (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Got an email regarding the Brokenshire article from colleague at UniSA – Politics at the University of Adelaide is better 😉 Should know because I teach here. Rodney Tiffen and James Jupp will love to hear about this. If I remember correctly its a breach of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s28 to “intimidate” other users from exercising their political duty, which entails a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment[33]. Will be keeping a watchful eye over w:Special:Contributions/Timeshift9 (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I now understand what you mean. The word ‘defecting’ should not have been removed. I have looked through some of your history of edits and have noticed you removed these comments from the Mike Rann discussion page.

You seem to be doing a lot of edits on the Mike Rann article. Are you sure you aren’t somehow affiliated with him? There is a NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This is in perspective of the amount of “media advisors” he has. Wikipedia is not a publicity tool. –Amylee243 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don’t worry too much about it mate, I seem to be having a similar problem too. Just make sure you keep an eye out for the edits by Timeshift9203.122.240.136 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That comment isn’t even worth a reply. No I am not affiliated with any political person or party. Go away. Timeshift9 (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It’s true. Go onto the history of the Mike Rann page. Edit after edit is made by you, and as soon as there is negative content you remove it. I’ve put it up for Point-Of-View Check.-Xx teebone xx (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do a lot of edits in a lot of places. I’ve been on here for years and am well-known. Review my edits apart from the week, completely encyclopedia-building. My full list of all edits in chronological order is here. The edits in the past week suffer from issues with WP:VWP:POVWP:RECENT, and WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a place for Advertiser opinions and criticisms. This is a biography of Mike Rann. His policy successes and failures are in the legacy section of the 2006 election page. Add the POV tag if you have criticisms with content in the article, but at the moment it is completely arbitrary and without merit. Timeshift9 (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just don’t do common reverts like you did here ( (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift9, why did you remove this edit made by User: – “Particularly recently, following the 2008 doctors and teachers disputes relating to conditions and pay, Mike Rann has been accused of being a so called “Good News Premier”. Running and riding when there are controversial issues come up or concessions need to be made.”[1] This is referenced from The Advertiser.-Idea-5000 (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that those comments were followed by an article lock. Just find your WP:POV interesting, also noting your selective inclusion of anti-Liberal articles on your page [34] [35]. And rest assured, I will stay away from WP:POV now that I understand what is in dispute, namely the “defecting”. Furthermore, I will attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page as you have suggested. ID9283672385 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It’s obvious you are trying to find a bias when there isn’t any, because you’ve been caught out. I have been an editor on here for 5 years and I stand by all my edits, not just the ones you choose to cherry pick.Timeshift9 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering User:Timeshift9‘s page calls Family First “hypocritical”, “non-sensical”, there is serious WP:POV issues mate. The word you used Timeshift9, cherry pick, this is what I teach to my Communications Management 101 students. You sure you not a Member of Parliament? To me all of your edits on the Robert Brokenshire page have been reverts:
Trying to silence free speech? This is a breach of the constitutional guarantee to freedom of political communication in Australia. If you have a personality disorder pertaining to schizoid (emotional coldness),antisocial (tendency to violate rights of others), or narcissistic (tendency for personal power), that’s fine, but don’t keep a watch on all Australian Wikipedia politics pages and revert every change, without coercing users to gain WP:CONSENSUS merely because you alone “disagree”. Clearly, your disagreement itself lacks WP:CONSENSUS130.220.71.19 (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting you raise narcissism, generally not referred to as a personality disorder other than in criminology, nice application of psychology on facts. It seems as though the cognitive shame attached to such an action will cause User:Timeshift9 to rethink his actions, and how it affects other users. Abusive tendencies can only be remedied via open discussion between victim and culprit. (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is it not an opinion poll. Removed Timeshift9’s inappropriate edit that Robert Brokenshire made a “shock” announcement [36], noting analogous WP:POV concerns of the use of the word “defecting”. (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed his inappropriate banter. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. User:Timeshift9, please consider WP:COI, since recalling “a convo several months ago” on Evans replacing Brokenshire is indicia you have insider information as a parliamentary assistant, likely, a breach of the tort of confidential information under the Rann ministry. (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Timeshift’s comments do not necessarily indicate “inside knowledge,” I read them as a reference to a on-wiki conversation, but regardless, it is always a good idea not to assume the worst. Secondly, please be careful suggesting that on-wiki activities are illegal or may leave someone open to civil liability. Such statements can have a negative impact on the editing environment and often unnecessarily createdrama. Finally, please avoid altering, moving or deleting comments made by other editors that are not obviously unhelpful. If in doubt, it is usually better to establish the meaning of these comments with a talkpage question than removing them without discussion.  — Lear’s Fool 08:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I’ve reverted Frickeg/Timeshift9’s INAPPROPRIATE censoring of comments criticising his “censoring” [37]. Admin, please ban Timeshift9 if he continues this scrum. Wikipedia is not a media circus for astroturfingsockpuppet media management clowns. Easiest way to outline this is 2 pictures taken by User:Timeshift9, (1) Liberal leader’s bald head and awesome picture of Labor leader being strategic. Call me an idiot, but if you thoroughly review Timeshift9, there is occupation written all over him. To suggest a freelance internet user has so much free time to spare on writing biased articles, indicates media management. (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn’t sure whether to insert this on this page or [38], but I’ll include it here too. User:Timeshift9, I understand you may have some obsessive anger issues, but using provocative obscene language is not the way to deal with it. Neither is User:Frickeg‘s rhetoric and weasel words. CALM DOWN. You’re talking with a University ISP here, and the way to solve problems is not by removing comments that you dislike. Freedom of information is what Universities teach their kids, not censorship. Mike Rann may like censorship, but we are not Communist China. Peace is resolved by what is known as transparency, openess, honesty. A few words that Rann defies, and which in all purposes here both Bob Brown and Steve Fielding adhere to. (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Never forget that University is the last place for dissent. It would be dubious either User:Timeshift9 nor User:Frickeg had any more experience in political commentaries than many of the Arts (Politics) students at theUniversity of Adelaide. Now I say a choice out of open discussion or User:Frickeg‘s ridiculous suggestion of removing comments on a political page, read Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation and think whether even an Australian Federal Police officer has the rights to stifle political communication. If not, stop using elitist words to differentiate the University of Adelaide and its staff and students which have been around for the past 200 years, with you and your 4 year (User:Timeshift9) and 2 year (User:Frickeg) existence. ClemMacIntyre (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Who is “they”? Who have you worked with online? Who have you worked with offline? Who are you?? In particular, what do you want to revert (i.e. euphemism for censor)? Before wanting to remove ANYTHING, as Lear’s Fool states, “please avoid altering, moving or deleting comments made by other editors… it is usually better to establish the meaning of these comments with a talkpage question than removing them without discussion”. The University of Adelaide politics commentator observes with particular interest from the sidelines. (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (UofA)

Calm down little children, remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think from both sides, User:Timeshift9/User:Frickeg as well as UniSA/UniAdelaide. As they said in Mattel v MCA Records 296 F3d 894 (9th Cir 2002), “the parties are advised to chill”.

Now what exactly is it User:Timeshift9 is concerned with? Rather than reverting any negative comments that may have been made about you, why not respond? (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9, it seems as though the word “defected” has been removed. Do you wish to contest this? Instead of personal attacks kids, its better to sort out what the conflict is and sort it out. If its relating to the postnominals, if you wish to add them please discuss it on this talk page first. (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: