Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Offender9000

Responses to Outside view by Moriori
''This was copied based on this edit. It did not belong in the section it was included in. The talk page is the most obvious place for it, or in "Response to concerns".''--LauraHale (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No you didn't. That entire paragraph has long gone and been replaced with a direct quote from the SST website with their mission statement. But the point is that there's a huge difference between what the mission statement of the SST says and how it behaves in reality - just as there is a huge difference between the Corrections Department's statutory responsibilities and how the Department actually performs. The reference was to the SST website and was entirely accurate. If you read the source a little more closely you will see the focus of the SST website (except for the mission statement) is actually on promoting tougher prison sentences. Having listened to Garth McVicar in the media for years, just about everyone in New Zealand knows that. As such its probably one of those statements that doesn't even need a source.  Offender9000 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * You just haven't being paying attention to what the SST is all about and clearly haven't read the SST webpage describing its policies. Nor have you kept up with the current state of the wiki page on the SST. The edits you're talking about are not there anymore. The article currently has the SST's vision statement and the reality - that what the SST really does is promote stronger prison sentences. Balance requires the expression of alternative views - and that's what it's now got. Offender9000 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are endorsing edits that no longer exist - neither mine nor Moriori's. It was part of the editing process but the page has moved on.
 * Just because you endorse something does not mean it is wikipedia policy. WP says: "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." In other words, balance is achieved by adding [|adding alternative points of view]. Simply deleting material does not achieve balance.
 * This view expressed by Moriori contains emotive accusations that I "audaciously misrepresented the reference and subtly added my POV to the page". He also claims it is "blatant POV" and a "very biased edit". Well it can't be subtle and blatant at the same time. That's a contradiction in terms. Second, the use of emotive language like this is a good demonstration of the lack of neutrality which you all criticise. So by endorsing his comments, you are all endorsing the kind of behaviour which you claim is inappropriate.
 * The fact that you validate Moriori's contradictory and emotive comments, but criticise me for making similar mistakes does not demonstrate an assumption of good faith towards Offender9000. I would remind editors that "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." LauraHale has already demonstrated a lack of it on this page by deleting one of my edits. Offender9000 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussions
As per the instructions "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." on the main page, I am copying the entire threaded discussion from the main page here and will then prune the main page to the correctly formatted questions and answers. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice that Offender has happily reinstated all the extraneous garbage despite the apparently specific instructions at the bottom of the page. I don't have time to get into unproductive edit wars so will leave any future action to an Administrator if there's one about the place. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
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.


 * Your "knowledge" is incorrect. Technically, SimonLyall "outed" you both when he 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)". However, the reality is that you don't work at Corrections and so one no one was outed at all (see discussion below).Offender9000 (talk) 20:23, 30 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)

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)

Who outed who?
There has been discussion in the RfC of who may or may not have outted whom. The edits are hidden, as required by WP:OUTTING but the summary given by the hidding admin at the ealier COI disussion is here. I believe it speaks for itself. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He's still going
I do not think he will ever stop - SimonLyall (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice Offender is still making mass quantities of edits about people with whom the person he claims to be is in significant off-Wiki conflict (a BLP disaster waiting to happen) and as shown here he has a unique view of what is and isn't subject to copyright (might need someone who knows about copyright to look a bit more closely at Offender's edits). Daveosaurus (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we don't finish this process he won't stop. Can you help with the next step on the project page? Simon has commented. NealeFamily (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I'm meant to do here? I'll leave a note saying I agree with the proposed solution but I would have thought that someone a bit more at arms' length from the goings-on would be a better choice to close it. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)