Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.''

Statement of the dispute
Ongoing NPOV issues by User_talk:Offender9000 at Department of Corrections (New Zealand) and related articles.

The issue has been discussed at the on the talk page, several times on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New Zealand, on COIN once twice, in a failed mediation and most recently a failed Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard debate (the failure of that last may have been my fault, it appears I chose the wrong venue, which is why I withdrew).

There have also been two instances where the subject has used the text of the mediation in other contexts ( and ) as explicitly prohibited by The privileged nature of mediation.

User_talk:Offender9000 also has a blog post outing editors which says "A ban was also placed on the Wikipedia page about the Sensible Sentencing Trust after one of the Department’s employees deleted sections of that which were written by Mr Brooking." To my knowledge no editor has self outted as a departmental employee.

Cause of concern
User_talk:Offender9000 is the author of an apparently self-published book "Flying Blind:Flying Blind How the justice system perpetuates crime and the Corrections Department fails to correct" (ISBN 9780473180751 associated website) and has been using the Department of Corrections (New Zealand) wikipedia page to promote his view of Corrections Department and penal populism. I've not read the book (and I'm not sure any of the other editors have either), but the subject appears to be using wikipedia as a platform to promote the same point of view; they have already been found to be in COI over the edits on the page.

The subject's view of both the department and wikipedia's processes, is best summed up in these edits vis: the department is acting criminally and the problems at the root of this wikipedia dispute are about content rather than COI or NPOV.

All the other issues are escalations / side shows of this core COI/NPOV issue.

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * Neutral point of view
 * Conflict of interest

Desired outcome

 * The editor will acknowledge he has a Conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand justice system.
 * The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to the New Zealand justice system.
 * The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to penal populism.
 * The editor will agree to stop outting wikipedia editors.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (full view of archived discussion)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * Daveosaurus (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) e.g. here and here.
 * Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * NealeFamily (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions to certifiers
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q. To Daveosaurous: At you point 8 it says: "The tag should stay as long as the "Criticisms" section is in its current form. At the moment it is extremely one-sided, in particular the paragraph which claims that "...Corrections is in breach of its statutory obligations..." (This appears unsourced and quite possibly original research). The section's content should either be balanced by other criticism from group"

1)The Criticism section is no longer in its 'current' form. 2)It no longer claims that Corrections is in breach of its statutory obligations. 3)The contents have been balanced by other comments?

Why are you making an issue of concerns that have already been addressed?

A. The full text of the comment (which you have truncated) went on to say: "from groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and/or references to the 1999 referendum, or (preferably) removed entirely." This has not happened, thus the concerns have not been addressed. In addition, that comment was linked to as an example of an attempt to solve the issues specified by Stuartyeates which are at the heart of this RFC/U; this is part of the certification process, not a reopening of that (moribund but as yet unsolved) debate. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to add material from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. The point was made throughout the mediation that balance is achieved by adding material rather than deleting it. I added material from Corrections Department sources which provides balance. In regard to the SST, I am not responsible for your decision to not follow through on your own suggestions. However I would note that since Garth McVicar does not have any qualifications in psychology, sociology or criminology, he would not be regarded as a reliable source on this subject. Offender9000 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing that happened in mediation can be mentioned or discussed here, as per policy. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not privy to the mediation in question. You are also drawing a false middle ground between Corrections (a neutral body) and yourself. If any middle ground is to be found, it is between your group and the SST (and I would suggest that the results of the 1999 referendum indicate that the SST is by far the more mainstream of the two). But the article is about Corrections, not your theories, and not those of people who disparage Corrections facilities as "country clubs". Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of you completely missed the point. It is not up to me to add material you think is relevant. If you want to add material about the SST, it is up to you to do so. That's how editors collaborate and balance is achieved. Offender9000 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Q.To Daveosaurous: At your point 9 it says: Much of your contribution is unsuitable for Wikipedia, being non-neutral, referenced to books so obscure they can't be found in Amazon (e.g. "Flying Blind"), or original research (statements such as "Corrections appears to be in breach of its statutory obligations" are journalism, not encyclopaedic material). I note also that Stuartyeates wrote: "I have no problems with references using flying blind, particularly if they give a page number. I take issue with references using a website that's just advertising material for flying blind."

There are more than 80 references on the Corrections Department page and only one of them relates to Flying Blind? This point has been made many times but you keep ignoring it. Once again you quote the particular statement that bothers you: 'Corrections seems to be in breach of its obligations'. This has been removed. Why are you still making an issue of a concern that has been addressed?

A. See above answer for the reason this has been linked to. I am not Stuartyeates and do not necessarily agree with everything that editor says. The statement in question is the most obvious manifestation of the problems found throughout your contributions to this article: poor sourcing, non-neutrality and original research (please read that last link if you have not done so already). I do not have enough knowledge of the inner workings of the Department to be able to tell what else of the content you have added is similarly inappropriate. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you admit that you do not have enough knowledge of the inner workings of the Department to be informed, and you have not read Flying Blind (about which you have made erroneous assumptions), your whole argument that certain material is inappropriate is on very shaky ground. At least I have enough knowledge to be able to write a book on the subject - even though there is only one reference to the book in the entire article on the Department. Offender9000 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is precisely this confrontational attitude which is causing you problems. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a debating chamber, and you need to try to work with other editors, rather than against them. I also have no interest in being dragged into the sort of pettifogging argument that has characterised this subject so will make no more comment except to new and relevant questions. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is meant to be a collaborative effort. Unfortunately, all SimonLyall did was delete material. His 'editing' style was entirely confrontational and he added no new material. Although it takes two to tango, this 'behaviour' was largely responsible for starting virtually all the edit wars which occurred. You and Stuartyeates are behaving in a similarly unhelpful manner. You delete material and complain the article is not neutral - but you fail to add the material you say would make it more neutral. If you think balance would be achieved by adding something about the SST, go ahead and add it. Then other editors can look at your contribution and edit it accordingly. But if all you do is complain that the article is not neutral, that's not collaboration - that's pettifogging. Offender9000 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of what is or is not currently on the page is irrelavent in this conversation, which is focused entirely on your behaviour. You repeatedly added references to your book to the page, in fact you edit-warred to insert them. Similarly you have repeatedly made edits which have turned the page into an WP:ATTACK page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Information on wikipedia is achieved by the 'behaviour' of editing. It is a process whereby the accuracy and reliability of the information on a particular page is constantly improved. The editing of the Corrections department page (the main one under discussion) has been going on for six months. I have taken on board input from other editors and made changes accordingly. The process involves compromise and collaboration - that's how wikipedia works. What is currently on the page is entirely relevant because the current state of the page is a reflection of my editing behaviour. It shows my willingness to compromise.


 * Other editors such as SimonLyall and yourself have adopted a confrontational approach and consistently deleted material over and over again without adding anything. The mediator told SimonLyall off for his lack of willingness to compromise. You seem to be stuck in a mindset that nothing on the page has changed. It has changed enormously.
 * Nothing that happened in mediation can be mentioned or discussed here, as per policy. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard to Flying Blind, you say "I repeatedly added references to the book". So what? You also said "I have no problems with references using flying blind, particularly if they give a page number." The fact that I have written a book is a red herring, apart from the fact that it makes me more informed than most other editors on the subject. Offender9000 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Q To Nealefamily. Previously you wrote: "A number of the issues raised as concerns about the Department's behaviour are valid and were well documented in the local media. There are also reports from a number of investigations into the various incidents, but these need to be cited in a more balanced manner." What are your concerns?


 * My concern was that the issues raised were being not being treated impartially, with emotive language being used and some comments moving close to defamatory. While at the present moment in history the issues are topical, over time they will be less relevant. I had in earlier discussions suggested some independent editing to mitigate this could be undertaken, but after seeing a fresh edit war break out decided to leave the issue alone. I am also concerned that Offender9000 is, perhaps, to close to the action and has a conflict of interest relating to the subject because of their book. NealeFamily (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, this is very similar to the unhelpful comments that SimonLyall used to make. To claim that issues are "not being treated impartially and emotive language is being used" is too vague to be helpful. How is an editor supposed to respond to that? You need to be specific. Which statements or paragraphs are not balanced? Which word in particular is emotive? If on the other hand you actually edit out a word that you regard as emotive, then you have made a collaborative contribution. Or if you reword a section you regard as non-neutral, then you are performing a collaborative contribution. But if all you do is delete entire sections as SimonLyall and Stuartyeates do; or make vague accusations of bias, how am I (or anyone else) supposed to address that.

You suggested an independent editor. None of us are 100% independent. We all have biases of some sort. That's why wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you want to improve the neutrality of these articles, you need to start collaborating - instead of leaving it up to some mythical independent editor who probably doesn't exist. Offender9000 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My reluctance to edit the article was brought about by edit war that broke out again after the attempted mediation. I do not wish to entangled in such conflicts. Researching and contributing in a meaningful way requires both time and effort. To do so in an a conflict situation where, who knows what will happen to your contributions, seems completely pointless to me. I really hope this forum will resolve the matter so that contributing becomes worthwhile. NealeFamily (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to be entangled in conflict either. It is a complete and utter waste of everyone's time. Unfortunately, many of the editors on this page are not willing to research and contribute to this article in a meaningful way. They simply delete material they don't like (apparently based on a lack of knowledge about what goes on in our prison system) and then claim that my contribution is not neutral becausee I have written a book on this subject. They may (or may not) have a point. But repeatedly deleting well-sourced material is deliberately confrontational. As I keep repeating, unless editors are willing to research and add new material, we will never achieve a 'balanced' article. This is how balance is provided - according to Wiki policy and according to the mediator.


 * And before Stuartyeates tries to say that statement is inadmissable because it was brought up in mediation, just think about it. It has the ring of truth about it irrespective of whether it was brought up in mediation. It was true in the mediation and is true outside of mediation. Offender9000 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Response
''{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}''

Response to concerns
Let's cut to the chase. One of your desired outcomes is that I "agree to stop outing wikipedia editors". I have never outed any wikipedia editors. On the Talk page SimonLyall wrote: "Try and reflect on why we are editing this article vs why you are editing this article (hint: it is not because we are employed by the Dept)"

I interpreted this sentence to mean that he and SY (the two main protagonists in this debate) both work for the Department, but that this is not "why we are editing the article". I sought clarification and repeatedly asked them to deny that they worked there - and they consistently refused to do so - thereby adding to the perception that they did.

Through other forums, I subsequently learnt that SL and SY do not work for the Department. Since they don't, they have not been outed. But even if they did work for Corrections, the statement made by SL was that "we are employed by the Department" so it seemed to me that they outed themselves. I am not responsible for SimonLyall's ambiguity on this matter and cannot be accused of 'outing' him by repeating a statement that he made about himself. Offender9000 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to your cause of concern. You say the problems at the root of this dispute are "about content rather than than COI or NPOV". And the content you claim to be concerned about is a statement that the Department is acting illegally. There is no such statement and there never was. There was a claim that the Department was in breach of its statutory responsibilities which is not the same thing. But since there is no such statement in the current version of the page, your cause for concern seems to have disappeared entirely. Can we move on now? Offender9000 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Questions to named user
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q. Do you see any conflict between what you say above and WP:OUTING? In particular, do you see any conflict between "Through other forums, I subsequently learnt that SL and SY do not work for the Department. Since they don't, they have not been outed." and "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A. Since SimonLyall was the person who 'outed' you, I suggest you direct your questions about outing to him. Offender9000 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Q. Do you believe the behaviour that you summarise above as "I sought clarification and repeatedly asked them to deny that they worked there", was appropiate, given the WP:OUTING policy? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A. Ditto. Offender9000 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Q. In the blog at Corrections Department censors Wikipedia it says say "The Department of Corrections has been deleting information about the Department on a page on Wikipedia. In the last couple of months, the page has become the venue of a wiki editing war between alcohol and drug counsellor, Roger Brooking, and two other contributors who apparently work for the Corrections Department." Do you believe that the Department has been deleting information? Do you believe a retraction might be in order from whoever wrote that? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A. What I believe is irrelevant. Its the facts that count. SimonLyall 'outed' both you and himself. I suggest you ask him why he did that.

Q. You have been campaigning in the area of criminal justice and the problems of the Dept of Corrections for many years. Would it be fair to say that your involvement on wikipedia is part of this campaign and that your main interest with wikipedia is to ensure that wikipedia articles in this area (mainly the DOC and SST articles) much more closely reflect your views than the views held by the organisations they are about? - SimonLyall (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A. Where is the good faith in withdrawing from the mediation you initiated, claiming that you don't have time to continue with it, but then participating here. If you wish to participate again, I suggest we reopen the mediation and you can ask as many questions as you like. Offender9000 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Q How do you propose to address the conflict of interest inherent with your continued editing of Sensible Sentencing Trust, an organisation with which you are in serious disagreement, as shown here: ? Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''


 * LauraHale removed one of my posts. That's how edit wars get started. (Sorry but I don't know how to show the link to that. Its on the View history page.) SimonLyall and Stuartyeates have a long history of similar behaviour. Offender9000 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Comment left here solely for Offender9000's benefit) LauraHale deleted nothing, but simply moved it to the Talk page where it belongs. See the instructions at the bottom of this page: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." I will shortly move the threaded discussion to the talk page as per those instructions. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Moriori

 * "....balance is achieved by adding material rather than deleting it..... Offender9000 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)"

Right there we can see why some of Offender's contributions are unencyclopedic. Adding more bias or POV will never achieve balance, but deleting it will help. And that applies to the whole page the article appears on, not just the text of the article. Here's an example of a very biased edit by Offender9000.

In this edit here, he added a title to a reference which audaciously misrepresented the reference and subtly placed his POV on the page. The paragraph edited follows, and his edit of it was the addition of the text seen in bold italics.


 * "Much of the drive for longer prison sentences in New Zealand stems from years of media attention given to Garth McVicar ...... of the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust.

The reference said no such thing. It actually states the SST has a vision of a safer New Zealand, and a mission "To obtain a large base of community support, and ensure safety for all New Zealanders from violent and criminal offending, through education, development of effective penal policies, and the promotion of responsible behaviour, accountable parenting, and respect for each other at all levels of society." I fixed it here.

Offender9000 needs to accept that it is not true that "....balance is achieved by adding material rather than deleting it...." when the added material is blatant POV. Moriori (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) SimonLyall (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) LauraHale (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Daveosaurus (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by LauraHale
''Offender9000 has engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to push a point of view that has involved making accusations of non-good faith on contributors, including speculation on employment with out evidence to back this up and possibly in violation of WP:OUTING. Attempts to find a solution so all parties involved can work together productively and collaboratively do not have appeared to have worked. This WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by Offender9000 was subsequently continued in this RfC when comments were inserted out of process into other people's views. Offender9000 needs to demonstrate a willingness to set aside WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and point of view pushing going forward.''

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) LauraHale (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  gadfium  04:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) This is either WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour or a profound ignorance of the standards required of Wikipedia editors. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Confirmed (I feel) by his edits today and answers to questions above - SimonLyall (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Moriori (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Daveosaurus. Avenue (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctantly, I concur NealeFamily (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) This appears to have been demonstrated Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Template 1
To try to move this debate to conclusion I suggest:
 * 1) The editor will acknowledge he has a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand justice system.
 * 2) The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to the New Zealand justice system.
 * 3) The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to penal populism.
 * 4) The editor will agree to stop outting wikipedia editors

Alternatively for 2 and 3, before inserting edits into the articles - will seek input from the WP:NZ community. NealeFamily (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with proposed solution as at time of writing. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Generally think this is a good idea. I note that Offender9000 continues to keep adding slanted material to the article(s) while edits by others have been minimal - SimonLyall (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Template 2
2)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template 3
3)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary
Many commentors agree that Offender9000 has engaged in outing, violations of neutrality/weight and battleground-like conduct. Offender9000 continues to dispute these characterizations of his conduct. No recent activity has occurred, therefore this RFC/U is being delisted. Interested users are, as always, free to pursue other forums of dispute resolution if this conflict continues to be an obstacle to collaborative editing.  MBisanz  talk 22:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.