User talk:I10love9kangaroos84

July 2021
Your recent editing history at Chris Crewther shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Longhair\talk 10:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Longhair. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chris Crewther without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Longhair\talk 11:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, I10love9kangaroos84, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 11:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much :D I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just sent you a wikiemail regarding this account. Cheers.

Chris Crewther
Hopefully the issues at the article on Chris Crewther have now been sorted in relation to the edit warring, sock puppets and advice on maintaining and hopefully eventually achieving a neutral point of view within the article. All of those issues that I've linked here are Wikipedia policy and must be adhered to.

You'll note on the article a template has been placed stating that a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. You haven't taken any issue with this template as yet, and I must bring to your attention other Wikipedia policies relating to conflicts of interests and paid editing.

I've looked over your edits, and note that you're only editing the Chris Crewther article, and you may have a conflict of interest with the article.

Per Wikipedia policy, you must declare any conflict of interests, and also declare whether you are being directly or indirectly paid for your contributions here. You do not have to be paid specifically to edit here, but if you're being financially compensated in any way, employed, contracted or similar concerning the article subject, that's still considered paid editing. Wikipedia is quite strict on the topic of paid contributions and any editor who hasn't declared their conflict of interest can be blocked from editing for a failure to disclose.

If a conflict of interest exists, please take a look over the information linked above. I am aware this area can be quite complex for some and if you need any assistance or guidance just reply here and I'll see what issues I can help with. -- Longhair\talk 12:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Further to the above message relating to conflicts of interest, you're going to need to request edits via the article talk page from here. Please cease from editing the article on Chris Crewther directly thanks. -- Longhair\talk 12:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Longhair Thanks for your message and apologies for the delayed reply. Obviously there is a conflict of interest on both sides, both in support and against. As previously noted, much of the recent updates to the article at this end since May have been in response to conflict of interest editing from 203.213.46.56 (single-article editing) aka 203.220.186.201 aka Nospamalot (single-article editing) aka Bobcat4455 (feigned multiple-article editing since original edits only of this page). As noted, these are political opponent edits, which not only attempt to engage in subject discrediting, but also in turn then aim to advantage this political opponent themselves.


 * When such attacks are made on lesser-known identities on Wikipedia, it is uncertain how such attacks can be countered except for coming from the subject or someone with a close connection to a subject, as it is often only those people with knowledge of the true circumstances surrounding any allegation/political attack. Similarly, for lesser-known identities on Wikipedia, it is likely in most cases that factual data is added by the subject or someone with a close connection to a subject, as many regular users may not be aware of details regarding such subjects. Wikipedia would be much poorer without such input, that obviously can then be corrected if need be by neutral editors if there is 'puffery' etc. The same would not be true of more well-known identities, for which people generally know a lot more about, thus less likely requiring COI editing or corrections.


 * With respect to single-issue editing, it must be noted that originally edits were across many Wikipedia pages (not just this one) in the past under an open IP address. It was only because of recent political opponent attacks on this page that a need was felt to login as a user as previously explained (on different devices when used as noted) so as to help prevent attacks from aforesaid political opponent, etc.


 * The advice from you had then been made to reduce to just one user account, I10love9kangaroos84, and to reset the password so it could be re-logged in across all three devices (laptop, desktop, mobile), which was done. Similar advice was given to political opponent Bobcat4455. The advice was then for both to make edits as needed, and to engage in a talk discussion. This only left I10love9kangaroos84 as the remaining user (having only previously edited this page - being a single-article editor - having been set up solely because of attacks against this page and multiple pages originally edited when just logged in under the IP address). If your advice would be to delete I10love9kangaroos84, and go back to the IP address which had been more than just a single-issue editor, then happy to do so?


 * Your advice with respect to engaging in the talk page without making further edits had already occurred prior to this advice not to edit under I10love9kangaroos84, but so far nothing has happened with the 'Focus of media attention' section, despite it being it non-neutral, set up by the aforesaid political opponent using the now-blocked account Nospamalot, set up as a conflict of interest for both subject discrediting and political opponent advantaging purposes, and containing unsourced, later discredited and libellous material.


 * As per Wikipedia policy noted on the talk page, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous", this section continues to contain material that is unsourced (as explained on the talk page) and which is poorly (or incompletely) sourced and libellous (given the events as claimed by political opponents (e.g. company getting a government grant that didn't actually happen) were shown to have not occurred, as also explained on the talk page).


 * So as not to further edit this page, as advised, your help on taking action on this section would be appreciated. That is, edits are requested to remove this non-neutral section, particularly noting the above policies. Once that occurs, anything else in the article not written well, or not sourced enough, etc, can be easily corrected if needed by neutral editors.


 * In terms of edits previously made, particularly in terms of correcting misinformation or incorrect information put up by aforesaid political opponent, any edits have been made in a factual and sourced way (e.g. political opponent taking out subject 'instigation' of modern slavery inquiry, then re-adding this as this was subject instigated as evidenced through the sources).


 * In terms of 'taking issue with the template', hopefully this comment, comments made to your Longhair talk page and comments made in the longer section of this page's talk page, taken together, note the issues in full and the reasoning for COI editing to correct information after opponent conflict of interest editing on multiple occasions.


 * In terms of 'directly or indirectly paid for your contributions here', this is certainly not occurring in any way.


 * Hopefully this clears things up further, and thank you.I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Request an edit to remove the offending paragraph via the article talk page. By requesting an edit, editors who perform that type of work will be notified of your request. You'll need to state why during your request. If the content involves violations of the policy on biographies on living persons, bring that issue up during your edit request or take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. I have tried to be fair, and assist you to work through these issues and it's only fair that I also inform you of the rules of Wikipedia that editors with a conflict of interest should not edit articles directly. Yes, that will apply to both sides with concerns. I do understand what is going on and why based on what I've been told and what I've witnessed for myself. -- Longhair\talk 06:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Will do and thanks I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestions 1, 2, 4 and 5 seem reasonable and I have no particular objection.

Your 3rd suggestion seems be a no-go. We need a reliable, independent source that explicitly talks about Crewther's claimed role in these developments in order for them to go in the article. A glance at some of these sources finds sources that a) refer only to Crewther as being one of several key people, b) refer to his role in vague language that doesn't really shed any light, or c) are primary sources that again, shed no light on Crewther's specific role. There is something that could be said based on these sources, but "instigated and led" (at least in a way different from any committee chair's leading of committee work) is not a claim supported by those sources. The same applies to the sentence about inquiring into Pacific aid. You can say he chaired these things (because that's a formal role that can't reasonably be disputed), but any grander claim needs sources. Only the last paragraph of that suggestion seems to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you The Drover&#39;s Wife for your prompt response.


 * With respect to the first sentence requested to add:
 * "In this role he instigated and led the 'Inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia', resulting in the Inquiry's August 2017 Interim Report, December 2017 Final Report ('Hidden In Plain Sight') and Australia's Modern Slavery Act coming into force on 1 January 2019."
 * The 'led' part is, of course, true given the Sub-Committee Chairmanship, albeit 'chaired' as you've noted is fine if that is better from Wikipedia's perspective. The 'instigated' (and also 'led') part is backed up in the Australian & New Zealand Institute of Insurance & Finance Journal Vol 43 Issue 3, 2020, page 10, in an article by Anna Game-Lopata: see https://issuu.com/marketing-anziif/docs/__journal_issue03_complete. This is further supported by paragraph 1.13 of the Final Inquiry Report, which notes the Sub-Committee's resolution requesting to undertake the Inquiry (which followed the subject's instigation within the Sub-Committee as referenced by Game-Lopata): "1.13 On 24 November 2016, the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee, chaired by Mr Chris Crewther MP, resolved to seek a referral for an inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia." See: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024102/toc_pdf/HiddeninPlainSight.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf


 * Separately, in terms of the subject's leadership with the Inquiry, the Guardian here also note: "Liberal MP Chris Crewther (who, before parliament, worked as an international lawyer through the UN at the Kosovo Property Agency, resolving property claims for people who lost possession of their properties due to the war). He produced a report on the issue of modern slavery, Hidden In Plain Sight, which is one of the best parliamentary reports you will read, from anywhere in the world." (see https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/nov/29/malcolm-turnbull-accuses-critics-of-paranoia-amid-meddling-claims-politics-live?page=with:block-5bff3bdee4b0de80e896eaa5#liveblog-navigation at linked page 8 of 10)
 * The portfolio Minister responsible also noted in her speech on the Bill in November 2018: "Without Chris Crewther’s passion and commitment as chair of the subcommittee, we wouldn’t be here talking about this bill today." (see https://www.lindareynolds.com.au/bills-modern-slavery-bill-2018/).
 * Also, Senator Rennick more recently said "Chris led from the start on this issue and chaired the parliamentary inquiry into the drafting of the legislation": see https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/a8d192e3-8da4-4797-a807-bb45ea0b3433/0152/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf


 * Hopefully the above provides further evidence and citations regarding the subject's instigation and leadership with respect to the Modern Slavery Inquiry and resulting Act.


 * The Inquiry Reports themselves were produced by the Sub-Committee, with the recommendations of the Final Report leading to the Modern Slavery Act.


 * You could though edit the suggested part as follows for more clarity, if you are minded to accept its addition, as follows:
 * "In this role he instigated and chaired the 'Inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia', resulting in the Sub-Committee's August 2017 Interim Inquiry Report, December 2017 Final Inquiry Report ('Hidden In Plain Sight') and Australia's Modern Slavery Act coming into force on 1 January 2019."


 * Also, the two Inquiry reports can be linked to here and are worth citing in relation to mention of these Reports: :https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024092/toc_pdf/Modernslaveryandglobalsupplychains.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf :https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024102/toc_pdf/HiddeninPlainSight.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf


 * With respect to the second sentence requested to add:
 * "For this work, Crewther was named amongst Assent Compliance's 2018 Global Top 100 Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Leaders and awarded a Freedom Award from Anti-Slavery Australia in October 2019."
 * The latter award is well-evidenced through multiple online sources, such as from Anti-Slavery Australia itself (see https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?u=650941ce2cb9f4f0f9d5ae11e&id=8494ced354#Freedom%20Awards), social media from Anti-Slavery Australia (e.g. https://m.facebook.com/pg/AntiSlaveryOz/photos/?tab=album&album_id=10157805087552915), and other sites such as https://www.worldfishing.net/news101/industry-news/anti-slavery-award-for-thai-union-director
 * The former, other than primary sources, is now more difficult to find given that the site, https://www.assentcompliance.com/corporate-social-responsibility/top-100/, has since been updated with the 2019 Top 100 and then the 2020 Top 100. However, the 2018 List is archived here:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20190412141849/https://www.assentcompliance.com/corporate-social-responsibility/top-100/ (the subject is listed at no. 82 of the top 100 when one scrolls down by clicking 'see more').


 * With respect to the third sentence requested to add:
 * "As Chair, Crewther also instigated and led an 'Inquiry into the Strategic Effectiveness and Outcomes of Australia’s Aid Programme in the Indo-Pacific', tabling the Inquiry's First Report in April 2019."
 * While true, that the instigation of the Inquiry came about through subject instigation within the Sub-Committee, this cannot be backed up by non-primary sources that can be found. This could though be added by saying:
 * "Crewther also chaired an 'Inquiry into the Strategic Effectiveness and Outcomes of Australia’s Aid Programme in the Indo-Pacific', tabling the Inquiry's First Report in April 2019."


 * With respect to the fourth sentence requested to add:
 * "He was also a member of the Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committees on Treaties and Migration, secretary and chair of the Coalition's Home Affairs and Legal Affairs Policy Committee, secretary of the Immigration and Border Protection Policy Committee, member of the Infrastructure, Regional Development and Northern Australia Policy Committee, member of the Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism and Investment Policy Committee and co-chair of the Australia-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group."
 * You have noted this would be acceptable. This information FYI is referenced at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=248969


 * In summary, this would be the suggested factual addition as amended (citing as you think best from the above provided and/or other sources):
 * After "...JSCFADT).[1]." add:
 * "In this role he instigated and chaired the 'Inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia', resulting in the Sub-Committee's August 2017 Interim Inquiry Report, December 2017 Final Inquiry Report ('Hidden In Plain Sight') and Australia's Modern Slavery Act coming into force on 1 January 2019.


 * For this work, Crewther was named amongst Assent Compliance's 2018 Global Top 100 Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Leaders and awarded a Freedom Award from Anti-Slavery Australia in October 2019.


 * Crewther also chaired an 'Inquiry into the Strategic Effectiveness and Outcomes of Australia’s Aid Programme in the Indo-Pacific', tabling the Inquiry's First Report in April 2019.


 * He was also a member of the Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committees on Treaties and Migration, secretary and chair of the Coalition's Home Affairs and Legal Affairs Policy Committee, secretary of the Immigration and Border Protection Policy Committee, member of the Infrastructure, Regional Development and Northern Australia Policy Committee, member of the Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism and Investment Policy Committee and co-chair of the Australia-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group."


 * Thank you -- I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also worth changing, The Drover&#39;s Wife, adding to the previous requested edits 1-5, would be to:
 * Change "...is an Australian politician." to "...is a former Australian politician".
 * Thank you -- I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As discussed previously, the other editor who you claimed was a "political opponent" was blocked indefinitely for operating undeclared multiple accounts as a result of the sockpuppet investigation opened by myself several days ago. Please let me know if you notice edits similar to their previous editing pattern so they may be looked over and dealt with accordingly thanks. Let me just say again that Wikipedia takes the issue of operating multiple accounts very seriously and I would strongly advise yourself to stick to this account for all future editing thanks. If there are any other undelcared accounts previously operated by yourself it would be in your best interests to disclose those and you'll be treated far more leniently than if any accounts should come to light by other means of investigation. I offer you this advice as since our previous discussion on this topic you have edited in good faith and I will be hoping any past actions would not harm your current editing here. Again, if the other editor returns, feel free to let me know. -- Longhair\talk 01:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)