Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:90%;background: transparent; text-align: left; padding: 0.5em; border: 2px solid grey; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #AAA; font-size: 110%; padding: 2px;" | Click 'show' to view full details of the closed case
 * style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The actual mediation proceedings are on the talk page attached to this request. Please do not modify those discussions or this page.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |

Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party


 * Articles concerned in this dispute


 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Archive_3
 * Talk:Department of Corrections (New Zealand)
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_56
 * User:Babakathy/coispace

Issues to be mediated
''All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on .''


 * Primary issues
 * Non-NPOV slant to the two articles - Offender9000 has been editing the two articles (and some others but mainly these) to create a strongly negative (non-NPOV) slant in them against the New Zealand Dept of Corrections and other parts in the NZ Criminal justice system. Even when content added is correctly referenced etc (which it often is not) the intent is always to ensure that negative incidents and reports are emphasised. Discussion has been unsuccessful (and sometimes heated) and the non-NPOV material (or similar material) is re-added to again off-balance the articles.

The nature of the edits by SimonLyall and StuartYeates who remove entire sections rather than rewording or rephrasing passages that they regard as 'negative'. Removing entire sections creates a 'slant' in the opposite direction - away from an accurate portrayal of the Department's activities. Clarification on whether Roger Brooking's book Flying Blind is a Reliable Source - bearing in mind it carries Testimonials from a number of prominent New Zealanders - including (among others) a former Prime Minister (subsequently appointed as Chairman of the NZ Law Commission), a professor of addiction psychiatry at Otago University (and director of the National Addiction Centre), an Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Victoria University (specialising in prison studies), the Co-Chairman of the National Committee for Addiction Treatment, the Chief Economist at a prominent economics research company which contracts to Government Departments - and a retired Queen's Counsel barrister. Flying Blind has also been cited in a decision by the three judges in New Zealand's Court of Appeal regarding the availability of rehabilitation in New Zealand prisons. It has been favourably reviewed in an article titled The Problem with Prisons in a reputable weekly magazine (The New Zealand Listener). It has also been referred to in a television interview on Media7 and by well known columnists in a number of newspaper articles. Claiming that other editors work for particular agencies without them explicitly saying so is WP:OUTING, which says [p]osting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Continuing to do so remains outing. The editor's choice to edit under what may appear to be their own name does not make outing an acceptable practice.
 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1:Editing process
 * Additional issue 2: Reliable Sources
 * Additional issue 3: Outing

Parties' agreement to mediation
''All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.''
 * 1) Agree. SimonLyall (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree on one condition. SimonLyall and StuartYeates appoint a spokesperson. "Groups of parties with the same viewpoint on a particular issue may opt to appoint a single spokesperson for their faction."  It is too complicated trying to deal with two editors at the same time who tend to 'gang up' and often use contradictory arguments.Offender9000 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While it may be fine to appoint a spokesperson, it is not an absolute requirement. In a mediation, there are usually two sides. The mediator is responsible for ensuring that the views of each side are taken into account. If you three agree to this, I would be willing to mediate. Sunray (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I'm happy to let SimonLyall speak for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.''
 * Accepted. We will have a mediator appointed to this case shortly. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Start
Hello, I'm Xavexgoem. I'll be your mediator. Discussion will take place on the talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Result
Failed. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * }