More Wikipedia silliness. What’s with the Republican on Republican attacks this week?

In a follow-up to my post of a couple days ago, I was doing a little checking on the continued history of the edits being made to the Wikipedia page of State Senator Stace Nelson, as there appeared to be many of them made by Stace himself.

If you recall…

There were a number of them from a user using his e-mail handle, as well as a number of them being identified as coming from a certain or similar IP addresses.  Predictably, there was a flurry of edits yesterday, as well as a connected post to Wikipedia, where on the latest IP Address, Senator Nelson outed himself as editing his own page, lamenting that “there were claims that have been proven false, or were never officially alleged.”

While it didn’t earn sympathy, it did earn him a scolding from Wikipedia editors about editing his own page:

After he’d outed himself as editing his page from, as he complains about “political opponents attempting to use Wiki to slander him” what did Senator Nelson kept himself busy with after that?

Since the time he’s been called out on editing his own page, he’s started editing SDGOP Chairman Dan Lederman’s wikipedia page. Which, considering his edits…

…it seems an awful lot like he’s using wikipedia to attack “his political opponents.”

Good Gosh. Between scorecards and wikipedia pages this week with Stace Nelson and Lora Hubbel, it would be nice if some Republicans decided to just worry about themselves, and to actually support other Republicans, instead of trying to create faux bragging rights over who the bestest Republican is.

Yeesh. Why can’t we all get along?

22 thoughts on “More Wikipedia silliness. What’s with the Republican on Republican attacks this week?”

  1. Mr. Nelson is a busy little fellow, isn’t he? I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t send out more of those robocalls soon, attacking that nice young Ms. Peters woman for doing her job and slapping him down when he couldn’t understand the facts or his job.

        1. He makes innuendos & grandstanding statements but backs it up with nothing. Every time he gets called out rather than get down to brass tacks he dreams up another conspiracy.

  2. So you and others posting ignorant comments on Senator Nelson’s wiki page is legit, but Dan Lederman getting outed as a current Iowa Democrat isn’t?

    We’re you one that posted he was dead? Or the other ugly comments? (Look at the history of edits)

    Why didn’t you do a legitimate story on Citizens for Liberty scorecard? Because you can’t defeat the ugly facts?

    1. If you’re so proud of it, then why are you posting anonymously?

      Otherwise, why on earth would I waste my time with stupidity? And that’s a reference to both going in and making up things on someone’s wikipedia page, as well as biased scorecards that are designed to make one person look good.

      Tell me, Mr. Anonymous legitimate commenter… where were the declarations where those issues were important for CFL before people voted on them?

      Anyone told they would be “rated” bills? That’s what the NRA does. Neither I, nor anyone else can certainly recall hearing about any, because they didn’t exist until the bills on the scorecard were cherry picked.

  3. Can CFL be more corrupt? What a bunch calunnous scumbags. Do they disclose who they are or are they hiding behind their Antifa stocking hats.

    1. Troy – Can you elaborate on corrupt? I look at the scorecard and see a list of bills and how each legislator voted. I can click on the bill and get more information about why my rep has voted one way or the other. Doesn’t seem that corrupt to me, actually quite informative.

      I will say the CFL’s website sucks, but their mission statement isn’t that far off from the GOP’s. I honestly want to know why this is a “bad” group. I just don’t see it.

      1. They cherry pick the results. For example, to gt a good score with this group, you needed to vote to keep an unconstitutional IM 22. The Courts already declared it unconstitutional and Stace Nelson/Lance Russell were the only ones that were right. Seriously…something is declared unconstitutional and these 2 vote to keep it.

        They only attack Republicans, but claim to be a conservative group.

        Yet some of the most conservative members of the legislature don’t score well on their card… rubbish.

        Really Stalzer, Haugaard are not 80% conservatives…SERIOUSLY!

          1. It was going to take two years and cost an additional $500,000 to take IM22 to the Supreme Court. On a salary of $6000 a year that’s not a return on investment any rational person would make if there was a viable alternative. None of the people who wanted the Supreme Court to decide stepped up to the plate to raise the $500,000. In fact they didn’t even join the lawsuit to uphold the Constitution, which they took an oath to defend.

  4. KM,

    Manipulate the results as described above to get a desired result and they don’t disclose who they are to hide the conflict. They are corrupt. By definition.

  5. I appreciate input, much was already easy to spot: cherry-picking & manipulate results to show a desired outcome. These are strategies institutions/companies use all the time…”polls” showed Hilary as our next POTUS?

    I’m not going as far to say CFL are “attacking” Republicans, not yet anyway. I know there are Rep. legislators who are voting much more liberal than their constituents want, there’s one in my district. I perceive CFL to be bringing this type of corrupt campaigning & voting to light. For example, If you say you’re pro-life, prove it.

    I take the scorecard for what it is, much like I take Conserv.Review’s scorecards or the Morning Consult’s poll results. Why shouldn’t we hold our reps accountable for voting records, they do work for us.

    1. Indeed, it’s just a revommitted lie from hatchet jobs making unsubstantiated claims to slander somebody’s such and such, vandals, malicious stuff, bitch, moan, whine.

Comments are closed.