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

In case people didn't read all the references yet. Offender9000 is Roger Brooking so he is asking for his own book to be admitted as a Reliable Source. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon, whether that is true or not is something to be left until you start the mediation process. It is still not good practice to name a Wikipedian even under these circumstances. All the issues relating to WP:RS and/or WP:COIN can be sorted then. As I and others have said to Offender9000 stay within mediation process and don't try to litigate outside as it only weakens your case. NealeFamily (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from others

I have been involved here in a purely administrative capacity, and have been advising some form of dispute reolution for some time. It is clear that these users are not able to settle the matter amongst themselves, so I urge the mediaors to do everything they can to resolve this. I also believe that the situation could be improved by simply drawing attention to it, consensus is easier to determine if ore than three people are involved in the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a possible way out of the quagmire to the warring parties. Given that you are all seeking accuracy and balance in the article can I suggest the following process.

• Beeblebrox or someone who can locks the article
• Offender9000 copies it to their sandpit - edits it to the point they think it should be - with references
• On completion Offender9000 passes it to a mutually acceptable member of Wiki project New Zealand to review, edit, tidy up, and add where appropriate.
• Then all three parties go through and identify any remaining points that concern them and any list any edits they think are needed (do not edit the article itsself)
• The Wiki project NZ member responds or alters the article as appropriate and any unresolved issues are put to the forum (that is WP:NZ) for discussion
• If no resolution is possible then back to mediation.

Assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. Attack the issue not the person. NealeFamily (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Note: Section moved from request page. AGK [•] 23:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Question #1 - What is the problem?

Hello. First, I want to remind everyone that (like all mediations under MedCom) this mediation is privileged: you cannot use anything discussed here at AN/I, ArbCom, any other noticeboards, etc. What is said here stays here. I've noted that Stuartyeates has allowed SimonLyall to speak for him.

Let's get straight to business:

This is a question for both SimonLyall and Offender9000.

What, briefly, is the problem as you see it? I know it's all been said before, but the privileged nature means that we can perhaps be more direct. Please be brief in your answer, and avoid "cross-talk". If you prefer, you can email me directly. I will then attempt to provide a neutral summary on your behalf.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cross-talk"? Offender9000 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should be more clear: I just mean don't comment on each other's replies. Just the bigger issue. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Offender9000's reply

Defining the problem.

When I first came across the Department of corrections page (December 2011), it was relatively brief and almost everything on it was a direct quote from the Department of Corrections website. Not surprisingly, the Department tries to present its public image in a positive light. This involves the selective use of (positive) information and omission of information which might be seen as negative. This PR manipulation was identified by the New Zealand Ombudsman in his 2005 report: Ombudsmen's own-motion investigation of Department of Corrections in relation to the detention and treatment of prisoners, 2005. On page 11, the Ombudsman wrote:

“Sadly, from our interviews, and again reinforced by our own observations and information that we gathered, prisoners do not see the Department as succeeding in the way that it seems to perceive for itself. Significantly, neither do frontline staff. Furthermore we do not see that the ultimate figures (for recidivism) demonstrate great success for the Department.”

On page 12: ‘While a casual reading of the Department’s published documents might suggest it is substantially meeting (its) ideals and intents for prisoners, our conclusion is that this is not the case.”

In other words, the Ombudsman found that little, if any, information in the Department's media releases and annual reports could be trusted. The content of the original Corrections Department page on Wikipedia was no different. It presented a misleading and distorted perspective of the Department’s activities.

Because of my work as an alcohol and drug counsellor, I have been involved in the Justice and prison system in New Zealand for over 10 years. I see the extremely limited rehabilitation that is available to prisoners and the daily abuse of prisoners committed by Corrections. I have an intimate knowledge and perspective on the system that most people don't have. So I wrote a book about it: Flying Blind - how the justice system perpetuates crime and the Corrections Department fails to correct. Flying Blind has been extremely well received by academics and officials in the Justice system and has been cited in a case by the three judges in the New Zealand Court of Appeal.

Knowing how the system really works, I started posting more accurate information about the Corrections Department onto the wiki page. 98% of the material was referenced to original sources. A very small percentage was sourced to Flying Blind. However, Simon Lyall and Stuartyeates then started deleting just about everything I posted. They seemed to think that because I have written a book about the justice system, and occasionally referred to it, that nothing I wrote was neutral.

Occasionally, I may have used adjectives or particular expressions which may not have been appropriate under Wikipedia neutrality policy. However instead of changing the way a sentence or paragraph was written to assist neutrality, Simon Lyall and Stuartyeates just deleted entire sections. This does not return the page to a neutral stance - it returns it to a stance which supports the Corrections Department's misleading portrayal of its activities.

Thank you for your reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Specific example: There is also the point that what is seen as negative may well be just in the eye of the beholder. For example: Part of the original description on the page is that the Department operates prisons in a safe and humane manner. I have edited this by adding: "In regard to 'safe and humane' treatment, there are frequent assaults on prisoners and staff and in the last five years the number of prisoners attacking other inmates has nearly doubled. Forty-eight inmates were victims of serious assaults by other prisoners in the 2010/11 year, compared to 27 such incidents in the 2006/07 period.[21] In May 2010, James Palmer became the first prison officer to be killed in a New Zealand prison after he was punched by inmate Latu Kepu.[22] Thousands of prisoners request voluntary segregation each year to avoid violence and gang related problems in mainstream prison units."

This is factual information. It is neither negative nor positive. In my view it is entirely neutral - but it has been deleted by SimonLyall or Stuartyeates numerous times, apparently because they see it as negative. But removing it entirely leaves the impression that New Zealand's prisons are safe and humane. Such an impression is far from neutral - it is misleading and fundamentally inaccurate. Offender9000 (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

SimonLyall's reply

Primary issue - NPOV - The way I see it is that the article should be similar to other government bodies. For example Inland Revenue Department (New Zealand) , Ministry of Social Development (New Zealand) and Accident Compensation Corporation are 3 other public bodies (with more than their fair share of problems) all have articles covering their basic size, functions, responsibilities, and such. There should be a section covering criticism which should be where experts have directly criticised the dept (not where somebody has criticised general things like penal populism). However criticism of the department and negative things should not dominate the article. I'm afraid Offender9000's edits are almost solely aimed at highlighting the negative. For example the article in the current state lists The Department's Statutory Responsibilities but the main purpose of this is so that the next section can work through them and list ways the department is failing at these. Similarly Growth of the Department as slanted towards how the department is growing out of control and (especially in previous versions of the article) how this was due to penal populism and various other political factors. Overall Offender9000's wants the article to be one that solely reflects his political agenda rather than a balanced one similar to other articles where criticism is but one section.

Additional issue 1:Editing process - In (very) short. Large amounts of bad ( solely negative, unreferenced, dubious sources, general discussion of Criminal justice policy, highlights of every scandal ) material were being added (and re-added) by Offender9000 daily. Options in these cases are limited (especially when the editor in question wants to keep them).

Additional issue 2: Reliable Sources - Offender9000's book Flying Blind is obviously a book with a strong negative agenda. I am not really sure it is a reliable source and even if it is used as a source then it must be balanced with other sources. We also think that links shouldn't to the website but to perhaps the NZ National Library catalogue entry [1]

Question #2 - Define NPOV

Thank you both for your replies. Broadly, the issues are neutrality, sourcing, and editing process. Sourcing we'll get to later, but right now I just want to focus on NPOV and editing, which I think we can tackle together.

What I'd like from both parties is their take on the neutral point of view:

1. What it means generally.
2. How it affects Wikipedia.
3. How a reader may be able to tell whether text within an article is neutral or not.

I hate to sound like a teacher, but (wait for it.....) please make the reply in your own words. Be as brief as you can. You can even sum it up in list form.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Offender9000's reply

1) NPOV means that all significant views on a subject that have been published in reliable sources can or should be represented. Information presented must be verifiable, preferably from the most authoritative sources. Alternative views presented need to be balanced according to their relative merit. Articles should adopt a neutral tone providing an unbiased and accurate representation of the alternative positions.

There is no guideline under NPOV which suggests all articles about Government departments should have a similar format. Such an approach promotes bland conformity rather than neutrality. There is also the point that what one Department does may be of much greater interest to the public than another. Law and order and the treatment of prisoners is always a big issue in New Zealand. The Corrections Department's page on wiki needs to reflect that.

Currently there is also a major scandal about incompetence and breaches of privacy in the Accident Compensation Corporation in New Zealand and the Government Minister responsible for ACC has resigned. This is a matter of huge public interest and importance - but none of it is even mentioned in the ACC article. Information on the pages of the three Government Departments SimonLyall mentions is so sparse as to render the articles of little value to anyone. They probably all need to be beefed up.

2) Neutrality makes Wikipedia a reliable source of information for as many people as possible. Before I stared editing the Corrections department page, it was useful to those who work at the Corrections Department – but hardly anyone else. Similarly for the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust.

3) Three things which would suggest a lack of neutrality are.

a) Loaded adjectives or expressions.

b) Statements without verification - such as the original claim in the article that "prisons in New Zealand are administered in a safe, secure, and humane way". No reference was provided for this statement - which is not even true. It was PR spin or propaganda taken directly from the Corrections Department's website. I changed it to read like this - which is more accurate: Section 5 of the Corrections Act 2004 says "the purpose of the corrections system is to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society".[19]... By ensuring that custodial sentences (imprisonment) and community based sentences and orders imposed by the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board are administered in a safe, secure, humane and effective way. I then added information (with references) showing that, in reality, our prisons are not that safe thereby adding balance and neutrality to the article.

c) Lack of balance where an entire article presents primarily one point of view with little weight given to any other. This applied to the article before I started editing it - see comments under (b) above.

In order to provide balance to the section on the Growth of the Department I added this paragraph:

"According to Professor John Pratt at Victoria University, the increase in the prison population has been driven by penal populism - a process whereby the two major political parties in New Zealand (National and Labour) have competed with each other to be 'tough on crime'. Underlying this process is the media coverage of crime which contributes to inaccurate perceptions about the prevalence of violence in society and distorts perceptions of public safety. Much of the drive for longer prison sentences in New Zealand stems from years of media attention given to Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust."

Either SimonLyall or Stuartyeates keep deleting this paragraph. They claim it is not relevant to the Corrections Department. On the contrary, it is highly relevant because the growth of the prison population is a driving force for so much of what happens in the Department. It has led to overcrowding in our prisons, the introduction of double bunking and the building of five new prisons; it affects the availability of rehabilitation programmes and it affects security issues. The paragraph adds balance in three ways:

i) Before I started editing the page there was no section on the Growth of the Department at all. In other words, readers would gain the impression that the Department was static - without any problems. The section on Growth provides the reader with an insight into some of the dynamics affecting the Department. The paragraph that they keeping deleting explains where some of the growth comes from. It therefore provides context and balance.

ii) It describes the role of the media and of a right-wing extremist group (the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust) on the extraordinary growth of New Zealand's prison population - and provides the perspective of Prof John Pratt, an internationally respected criminologist on this process.

iii) It leads directly onto the next paragraph which is about the cost that building new prisons imposes on the country and Finance Minister Bill English's concerns about the Department's growth.

In other words I have provided comments from a wide range of stakeholders involved in or concerned about the growth of the Department. This is a key ingredient for balance.

SimonLyall's reply

I'll also try and be brief. I'm trying to be general here rather than talk about the articles in question.

1) A person has no particular preference of a controversial issue.

2) It generally means that articles should be fact based. They data in them should pretty much follow the (reliable) sources and avoid emotive language. major controversies should be addressed and well referenced but be proportionate in the amount of article they take up. Articles are there to provide the facts not push an agenda. After reading the article it should be difficult to tell the opinion of the author(s) on the problematic issues.

3) Non-NPOV articles will generally contain emotive language. Extremely positive or negative statements about the subject (often with no or dubious references). A small negative incident (especially a recent one) may take up a excessive proportion of the article. Major (eg not conspiracy theories) alternative viewpoints are dismissed or ignored completely. Articles with good NPOV will tend to have a section on a controversial issue where the viewpoints are stated openly and well referenced.

Question #3

To Offender

"There is no guideline under NPOV which suggests all articles about Government departments should have a similar format."

This is within the first paragraph of WP:NPOV:

"This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

Does this mean we have to be bland and comformist? No, of course not! (see Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example) But we can't continue until you acknowledge that NPOV is an absolute requirement. Can you continue editing under this rule?

To SimonLyall

"According to Professor John Pratt at Victoria University, the increase in the prison population has been driven by penal populism - a process whereby the two major political parties in New Zealand (National and Labour) have competed with each other to be 'tough on crime'. Underlying this process is the media coverage of crime which contributes to inaccurate perceptions about the prevalence of violence in society and distorts perceptions of public safety. Much of the drive for longer prison sentences in New Zealand stems from years of media attention given to Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust."

Without discussing the Flying Blind ref, which we'll get to later, how is this not NPOV?

--Xavexgoem (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Offender9000's reply

I fully understand the need for NPOV. But I am struggling to understand SimonLyall's concerns that my edits are not neutral. His definition of neutrality seems to be "the article should be similar to other government bodies". As far as I can see, 'similarity to other government bodies' is not mentioned anywhere as a criteria for neutrality. If the information about another Government Department comes solely from Government website(s), then it is unlikely that articles about that Department will be neutral, especially where there is public controversy and media speculation about some of its' activities. Such articles will inevitably be one sided. SimonLyall's approach appears to foster bland, innocuous articles which, because of their brevity and avoidance of controversy, actually end up lacking credibility and neutrality...Offender9000 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

SimonLyall's reply

1. The statements are some distance from the Dept of Corrections. The track goes Garth McVicar -> Media attention -> penal populism -> longer prison sentences in law -> longer prison sentences imposed by courts -> increased prison population. Even assuming this is an accurate/balanced picture then it is some distance from the Dept of Corrections who do not decide lengths of prison sentences.
2. A more neutral source could be used to show that average lengths and numbers of sentences had increased. Reporting the raw numbers would be enough without the extra commentary.
3. Loaded words like inaccurate perceptions , distorts perceptions , etc
4. It is a very long chain from a single source which says: "Garth McVicar caused increase in prison population". No other balancing sources are quoted and numbers before when the SST was formed (around 2001) and overseas (where it doesn't operate but where penal populations have increased (in the USA) or sometimes not). In other words huge room for debate, opposing views, additional clarification etc.
5. It is lots of extra speculation that doesn't belong in an article about a govt department. It is enough to say that the prison population has increased, provide some numbers to that effect and maybe some numbers on sentences and lengths. The causes should be in a different article. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Offender9000, could you please provide responses to these points, bearing in mind NPOV? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Offender 9000's response

General comment:

SimonLyall initiated this mediation process with concerns about the neutrality of the article. When asked to describe the problem, he said the “Primary issue was NPOV - The way I see it is that the article should be similar to other government bodies.” He has now gone on to criticize this particular paragraph under discussion on the grounds that: “The statements are some distance from the Dept of Corrections” (point 1) and “It is lots of extra speculation that doesn't belong in an article about a govt department (point 5).

In other words the totality of SimonLyall's comments indicate he is more concerned about relevance (WP:Rel) than neutrality. Perhaps this explains why he deletes entire paragraphs instead of deleting loaded words or rephrasing sentences. It might be helpful if SimonLyall reads WP:Rel which explains the concepts involved and says (among other things) “The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context. The bulk of Wikipedia's content consists of: a) Basic description – which explains what the subject is, what it does (or did), and what it is notable for. b) Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.”

In other words, SimonLyall is now bringing in concerns which were not contained in his initial description of the problem. If the problem is NPOV then his points 1,2,4 & 5 above are not relevant to this discussion. Despite the lack of relevance, I will address each point to highlight the flaws in his interpretation of the paragraph’s content.

Comments specific to his five points above:

1. The statements are some distance from the Dept of Corrections. The track goes Garth McVicar -> Media attention -> penal populism -> longer prison sentences in law -> longer prison sentences imposed by courts -> increased prison population. Even assuming this is an accurate/balanced picture then it is some distance from the Dept of Corrections who do not decide lengths of prison sentences.

The paragraph is not a track. It is a very brief summary of complex socio-political factors involved in the growth of the prison population in New Zealand. The paragraph is part of a section describing the growth of the Corrections Department. The fact that Corrections does not decide the length of prison sentences is irrelevant because it does not alter the Department’s core responsibility to administer those sentences. So a paragraph describing factors involved in the growth of the Departments size and responsibilitites is part of the ‘basic description which describes what the subject does’ and is also a factor which ‘influences the subject’s form, role, history and public perception’.

2. A more neutral source could be used to show that average lengths and numbers of sentences had increased. Reporting the raw numbers would be enough without the extra commentary.

Raw numbers are meaningless without commentary providing context for the data. Providing statistics but no commentary is boring and difficult to make sense of. The purpose of the paragraph is to summarise factors involved in the Departments growth. The paragraph is a brief summary and Wikipedia:Relevance says “Articles should be written in summary style.” And repeating the point: "The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.”

3. Loaded words like inaccurate perceptions , distorts perceptions , etc

This is the only point out of the five by SimonLyall which actually addresses issues of neutrality. I agree that at first glance, ‘inaccurate’ and ‘distorted’ perceptions appear to be loaded phrases. However, they are backed up by references to research which shows that NZ media report more stories focussed on violence and crime than media in most other western countries; and to research done at Victoria University describing public perceptions about the level of crime in society as inaccurate.

Details of this research are provided in Flying Blind. On page 50 of Flying Blind there are references to two different studies on this subject. One is a Ministry of Justice study which found 83% of New Zealanders held inaccurate and negative views about crime levels in society. The other is by Dr Michael Rowe, a criminologist at Victoria University which found “an overwhelming public belief that crime has got worse despite New Zealand’s murder rate dropping by almost half in the last 20 years.” On page 51 there is a quote from ‘What’s News? Reclaiming Journalism in New Zealand’ written by Judy McGregor who is a university lecturer in journalism. It reads:

“The selective and disproportionate media coverage of crime, particularly violence, when set alongside actual Police statistics, raises questions of skewed reporting in New Zealand at a time when crime rates are falling.”

So although phrases like ‘inaccurate’ and ‘distorted’ may appear loaded, in fact they are accurate summaries of research from multiple reliable sources.

4. It is a very long chain from a single source which says: "Garth McVicar caused increase in prison population". No other balancing sources are quoted and numbers before when the SST was formed (around 2001) and overseas (where it doesn't operate but where penal populations have increased (in the USA) or sometimes not). In other words huge room for debate, opposing views, additional clarification etc”.

a) SimonLyall has completely twisted what is written in the paragraph. The para does not say that "Garth McVicar caused increase in prison population". Those are his words not mine. The fact that SimonLyall put them in quotation marks suggesting they were a quote from me throws considerable doubt on the integrity of his intentions and his own ability to remain neutral.

b) SimonLyall also says: “No other balancing sources are quoted.” That is blatantly not true. The section is about the growth of the Department and numerous sources are quoted including Prof John Pratt.

c) The point is that the section under discussion is not about the Sensible Sentencing Trust – its about the Corrections Department and so the Trust is mentioned in only one sentence as one factor contributing to the Department's growth. For those who want detailed information about the SST and how it operates, there is a link to the wiki page on the SST.

c) Information about whether penal populism operates in other countries is in the article about penal populism and a link to that page is also provided. Linking is the appropriate mechanism to use when referring to something which is relevant but does not need to be discussed in detail on the page concerned. See WP:linking which says: "Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles".

5. It is lots of extra speculation that doesn't belong in an article about a govt department. It is enough to say that the prison population has increased, provide some numbers to that effect and maybe some numbers on sentences and lengths. The causes should be in a different article.

a) It is not speculation. The growth of the Department is well documented by reliable sources. The article mentions that five new prisons have been built, that staff numbers have increased and includes concerns about the Department's growth expressed by Bill English, the Minister of Finance.

b) The causes of that growth are described in a different article - the one on penal populism - which is also well documented. The paragraph that SimonLyall keeps deleting is just a summary - with links to separate articles about the SST and penal populism. Wikipedia describes this as the appropriate way to make articles relevant.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Redefining the problem:

We have yet to discuss my definition of the problem.

Editing Style:

1) SimonLyall deletes entire paragraphs instead of rewording those parts he thinks are not neutral. It is now apparent that he deletes them because he thinks they are not relevant – and mistakenly claims that what he is deleting is not NPOV.

In regard to deleting material, Wikipedia says: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopaedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

It would be helpful to all concerned if SimonLyall and Stuartyeates would follow this simple advice.

2) Edits made by SimonLyall on the Sensible Sentencing Trust article also show he is more concerned about relevance than neutrality. After deleting a paragraph I had written on the Sensible Sentencing Trust, he wrote this on the talkpage: “The point is the article has to be balanced and material in it properly sourced (and relevant).” Then Stuartyeates wrote: "I've added some templates”. Indeed he has and the template says: “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.”

It is clear that SimonLyall's and Stuartyeates' concerns have very little to do with neutrality. They are about relevance and so the template about neutrality is inappropriate and should be removed.

Reliable Sources.

On this issue SimonLyall says “Offender9000's book Flying Blind is obviously a book with a strong negative agenda. I am not really sure it is a reliable source and even if it is used as a source then it must be balanced with other sources.”

a) As previouly described, Flying Blind has been endorsed by numerous academics and quoted by judges in the NZ Court of Appeal and a number of media commentators. This is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer (former Prime Minister and former President of the NZ Law Society) had to say about Flying Blind:

"New Zealand has serious problems resulting from the abuse of alcohol and drugs. These problems end up in the criminal justice system. The problem is that the criminal justice system as it is configured at present fails to provide the treatment and rehabilitation that would ameliorate the impact of the abuse and prevent its re-occurrence. In consequence, these problems get worse and the level of offending goes up, not down.

The evidence about the problem is overwhelming. What is lacking is the will to do what is necessary to make things better. Roger Brooking makes the case for change and there can be no doubt that he is correct."

Tony Taylor, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Victoria University, Wellington wrote this: "Roger Brooking has done the country a service by producing this timely appraisal of our expensive but ineffectual prison system. With courage and perception, he cuts through euphemistic statements from politicians to expose the truth behind our extraordinary high rate of imprisonment and our high rate of reconvictions of prisoners on release."

Peter Williams QC, one of New Zealand's leading barristers wrote this:"This is a masterly analysis by an expert in this field who has approached his task objectively – and with a brutal disregard for official servility. ‘Flying Blind’ is an irresistible argument for a major increase in resources to combat the destructive effects of alcohol and drug addiction in our community."

b) SimonLyall clearly has not read the book - and so he makes assumptions about the content. Flying Blind does not have a negative agenda. It doesn't even have an agenda - other than to improve the way the NZ justice system works. It is an accurate, well documented analysis of problems within the justice system and provides positive achievable solutions. If it was strongly negative, academics and judges would not have endorsed it.

c) The wiki article on the Corrections Department is balanced with dozens of sources. There are only a couple of citations from Flying Blind in the whole article. The vast majority of the footnotes are to original sources. (As the page currently stands, there are 45 footnotes and not one of them refers to Flying Blind.)

Conclusion:

1) It should be obvious that I put a lot of thought and research into everything I write on wikipedia - both in the articles and in my replies to this mediation process. I back up the articles with numerous references to reliable sources. I back up what I say in mediation with references to wiki policy.

2) SimonLyall does none of this. He says what he thinks should or should not be in an article but he doesn't actually add anything. He deletes material he doesn't like - but adds nothing new. It seems to me that most of his statements in this mediation process are either unrelated to the primary issue, irrelevant, or inaccurate. He makes false assumptions, he misquotes, he distorts what I have written and he makes claims which are patently false. His whole approach is critical and negative.

3) The paragraphs that SimonLyall tends to delete (on the Corrections Department and the Sensible Sentencing Trust articles) are ones which link the SST to the increase in the prison population. He seems to want to hide the SST from this reality raising the possibility that he is either a member of the SST or, at least, is sympathetic to its right wing agenda. This raises concerns about whether he has a conflict of interest and is unable to edit using NPOV. Indeed, SimonLyall's negative editing pattern suggests he is the one with the agenda. And then he accuses me of lacking neutrality.

Woah nelly

I need to be clear that I can't mediate unless everyone is willing to compromise. We can't provide arguments for our case and at the same time make tenuous accusations pointed at the other editor. Both of you have done this. I don't want to hear that "they don't understand NPOV", either because of a potential COI or a misunderstanding of policy. It calls into question someone's editing philosophy, and therefore their entire editing history. Since we can't gauge what someone's philosophy is or whether it has changed – or maybe you can, but I can't change someone's philosophy – then the only use these accusations have is to get someone else to submit. After all, no compromise has been offered. This leads to cases where something like "'Garth McVicar caused increase in prison population'. Those are his words not mine. The fact that SimonLyall put them in quotation marks suggesting they were a quote from me throws considerable doubt on the integrity of his intentions and his own ability to remain neutral." is taken seriously by the person mentioning it (sorry, Offender, I mean no offense). It's tit for tat: I add text, you delete it. I have a COI, you have a COI. You don't trust me, I don't trust you.

It's super frustrating, and it's not an environment we can operate in. You both have good points about each other and the needs of the article, but these points are so muddied with accusations that they only serve to make the other guy one-up you. You're stuck in a loop, and it becomes less about the article and more about the editor. If the point of editing is to improve an article in the spirit of collaboration, then currently your methods of improvement are wrong. So you come to this mediation to get a better method. At least this is the hope; you could have come to this mediation to prove the other person wrong. If that's the case, then I can't help you; there will never be a time when the other editor says: "You're right, I have seen the error of my way ways, I will quit adding/reverting text wholesale."

Never. I have never seen it happen. Not in mediation, anyway.

The only way out of this is to compromise. Where should we start? --Xavexgoem (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC) If you want to hear something really depressing, my spellchecker doesn't recognize "Zealand" as a word.

I know I said I would let someone else speak for me, but we appear to have reached an impasse. The subject of this conflict seems really narrow: one source, a handful of closely related pages and a particular area of public policy in a very small country. There are a ton of other wikipedia articles that need attention. I'm happy to agree not to edit in this area for a period of time (6 months? 1000 edits?). Maybe we should all just back away and ask other people from Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand / Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal justice to work on the pages instead? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC) [update: WP:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities is probably closer than WP:WikiProject Criminal justice. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ]

To Stuartyeates: Thank you for you your offer not to edit in this area for up to 6 months. Personally I appreciate that. Offender9000 (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am happy not to edit the pages for 6 months if Offender9000 also agrees not to edit them for 6 months. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never been involved in a mediation on Wikipedia before so I have no idea how this process is supposed to unfold. I was under the impression that the mediator would suggest a compromise solution to each of the issues and ask if we agreed to it. You said at some point that we would come to the question of whether or not Flying Blind is a reliable source. From my perspective there is no doubt about that. But so far it has not even been a subject of discussion. How do you propose we address that issue? Offender9000 (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally the mediator sets the process. Right now, I'm asking how we should start compromising (which Flying Blind can enter into). I don't want to suggest a compromise if I think you two can work it out. I'm here to facilitate that. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Offender9000's reply

I don't think it is possible for SimonLyall to compromise. He seems unwilling to accept that Flying Blind is a reliable source - despite the evidence. He seems unwilling to accept that the primary issue he identified - neutrality - is not the primary issue. He fails to acknowledge that wiki policy requires editors not to delete entire paragraphs just because they think the para is biased. Which of these is he willing to accept.

If there is something he wants me to accept that doesn't contradict those three points, I'll think about it. At this stage I have no idea what he wants - apart from his ability to perpetually delete all reference to the SST contributing to the growth in the prison population. What else is on your wish list Simon? Offender9000 (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SimonLyall's reply

I once again point to the offer for all three of us to not edit the articles in question for 6 months.

My concern is with the NPOV of the article. For instance I can imagine the article being taken and being used as a template for other government departments. For instance one for the Education Dept would:

• Outline the department and it's growth in recent years
• Highlight that much of the growth was in back-end staff
• Point how a high percentage of NZ children were failing
• Have a dozen of so (carefully referenced) reports of teachers doing various criminal acts ( sexual abuse, falsifying test scores, whatever)
• Well sourced statements on how teacher's unions had pushed decreased student:teacher ratios where there was strong evidence this didn't help student outcomes.
• Some other stories about how unions had held up other process that would improve student outcomes.
• A state that a "Computer for every kid" initiative would cost $x billion but similar initatives overseas had not improved students test scores.

and so on. Just pretend you are a National or Act person in the education area. Now lets use the same template and do it from a more left wing perspective:

• Outline the department and it's growth in recent years
• Say how the dept is using best practices in education sectors and dedicated teams of trainers and support staff in each city
• Point to various stats saying New Zealand students rated among top in various international surveys
• Stats on the high qualifications required of New Zealand teachers and how they have increased of the years. Brief mention of very low number of teachers stuck off in recent years.
• Well sourced statements on how teacher's unions had pushed decreased student:teacher ratios which were shown to increase student outcomes.
• Some other stories about how various other "right wing" initiatives ( testing, detailed reports, etc ) were being pushed even though that were not shown to help (lots of sources for those).
• Statements from academics on how Charter schools (being pushed by National) had in the US been shown to have worse education outcomes for greater cost.

I'm not really an expert on education but you get the idea. Similar articles could be done for many other government departments. In each case they would be pushing the point of view and not be balanced.

In the case of the Department of Corrections I would ask Offender9000 to imagine:
(a) The article that he would like highlighting the department's failings throughout the article.
(b) A 20 line boring article that just states some numbers without any criticism
(c) An Article that carefully highlights the department's successes, gives glowing write-ups of it's staff, increased efficiencies, bold experiments in outsourcing, improved IT systems. References from overseas academics how it is 1st class etc.

I think that both (a) and (c) are not the article we want. (b) is closer but we have to have some balance of criticism and perhaps some positive areas (are we even covering private prisons?). I think Offender9000 is confusing this distance from (a)->(b) with (a)->(c) . - SimonLyall (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I take this to mean that some of the information provided by Offender9000 may be relevant to the article, but a good deal of the problem is simply one of presentation? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the article should cover some of the problems with the Dept but they shouldn't dominate it. - SimonLyall (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Stuartyeates's reply

On the matter of flying blind, I'd like to suggest that Xavexgoem write an impartially worded query to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, none of us participate in the discussion, we all agree to abide by it and none of us add/delete it as a source in article space until there's a decision. URLs that Xavexgoem might base his query on include [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6]. Unfortunately, as it discusses on RSN, context is important, so they probably need to know that Offender9000 has outed themselves as the author. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alternative suggestion to all. I have been follow this discussion and I noted that Offender9000 said at some stage the books quotes were from reliable sources in general. Why not simply use those sources to remove the point of contention? NealeFamily (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no references to Flying Blind in the current article but that has not solved the problem.Offender9000 (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Simon's reply before continuing. No rush. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Question #4

OK, I think this will be the last question. SimonLyall has said that much of Offender's content would be acceptable if it were presented in a more neutral manner. Here are the two diffs of, I believe, the most substantial information provided by Offender9000 for the article.

Here's the data I would definitely want to know, and which I feel are generally notable:

• The number of inmates in the New Zealand correctional system has nearly doubled in the last five years.
• Forty-eight inmates were victims of serious assaults by other prisoners in the 2010/11 year, compared to 27 such incidents in the 2006/07 period. In May 2010, James Palmer became the first prison officer to be killed in a New Zealand prison after he was punched by inmate Latu Kepu. (last one needs a new source; the source provided does not say that James Palmer was the first prison officer to be killed in a NZ prison.)
• the Ombudsman reported in 2011 that the Corrections Department does not meet Article 22(1) of the United Nations Minimum Standard Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which requires every prison to provide psychiatric services to a similar level to that which is available in the community. With some improvements, up to 1,000 prisoners a year are now able to access drug treatment programmes in prison. (This is pretty balanced)
• 90% of prisoners have problems with substance abuse.
• In October 2010, the Department had the second highest rate of imprisonment in Western Europe. (this always linked to Western Europe, but piped to "the west", which generally includes the US. This is notable enough as it is, but if that statistic includes the US, I would definitely want to know that, given the US's hefty imprisonment rate)
• In July 2010, Finance Minister Bill English expressed concerns that Government spending was "led by a rapidly expanding prison system which would soon make Corrections the government's biggest department".

This is actually a pretty short list, and likely wouldn't be much longer in prose. I've made an effort to present these as neutrally as possible.

Simon, Offender, do you have any comments on this? Additions, removals, edits? Xavexgoem (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Please thread the discussion; cross-talk is perfectly fine.

Responses to Question #4

• The number of - Perhaps a table with the actual numbers instead. A quick glance around the stats shows things seem to be flat at 8000-9000 for a few years. Perhaps up from 7000 odd 5 years ago and 5000 10 years ago but still. See pages off here or this story.

Xavexgoem wrote: "The number of inmates in the New Zealand correctional system has nearly doubled in the last five years." I'm not sure where you got that from but it is not correct. The number has quadrupled from 1950 reaching a high of 203 inmates per 100,000 in December 2011. The US rate is over 700 per 100,000. Perhaps of more interest than being second behind the United States is the fact that New Zealand's rate of imprisonment is on a par with Third World countries such as Libya (203) and Mexico (201) despite the drug-related murder and violence in those countries. New Zealand even locks up more people than Honduras (159) which has the highest murder rate in the world.

A table would not be helpful Simon. Tables takes up space and provide no context for the data. if you want good sources, the reference to a news item on TVNZ in 2009 you provided would not qualify - especially since you disparage the validity of such sources in your following comments. The International Centre for prison studies is the best source of information about prison rates around the world. Offender9000 (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Forty-eight - There are a huge number of stats in the annual reports here which might be better to link to than the news media. If the prison population has really increased then 48 would be a decline relative to the population. Either way the reports seem to have the stats. James Palmer should probably be in a separate paragraph.

Information about Jason (not James) Palmer should not be in a separate paragraph. The paragraph is about whether or not prisons are safe. Clearly, if prisoners and staff are assaulted and one has now been killed, then our prisons are not safe despite claims to the contrary by the corrections Department. This information needs to be included in order to balance the lies told by the corrections Department. Since you both agree that assaults and violence are a relevant issue, then information about suicide in prison would also be relevant - the suicide rate in NZ prisons is eight times higher than in the general population of New Zealand. Clearly, New Zealand prisons are not safe places. Offender9000 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• the Ombudsman - looks okay.

I'm glad that you both find information from the Ombudsman's report about the Minimum Standard Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners relevant. In his report, the Ombudsman highlighted some appalling abuse of prisoners in addition to the Department's failure to provide psychiatric services to a similar level to that available in the community. The ombudsman found that prisoners are denied dental treatment even when they have extremely painful toothache or even an abscess. Virtually the only pain killer allowed in prisoners Panadol even if you have cancer or a broken leg. In a different report specifically examining torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners in New Zealand, the Ombudsman highlighted the psychological abuse meted out to suicidal and psychologically vulnerable prisoners in the At Risk units. Prisoners who are considered to be at risk are subject to four strip searches a day and sleep deprivation at night. The Ombudsman pointed out that this is not 'treatment' - it is psychological abuse and inhumane. Sleep deprivation is a form of torture. This kind of information is required to provide balance to the deceptive claims made by the Department that New Zealand prisons are a safe and humane environment.

In his comments above, Xavexgoem followed information about the UN Minimum Standard Rules with information that 1,000 prisoners are able to access drug treatment and said "This is pretty balanced." No its not. The abuse of prisoners and the provision of drug treatment in prison are entirely different issues. They are not even related to each other, let alone balanced. However, if you are both comfortable to include the information that 1000 prisoners a year are now able to access drug treatment, this would need to be balanced by the statement that 20,000 people end up in prison each year, 90% of whom have alcohol and drug problems. In other words, only about 5% of those who need treatment are actually able to receive it in prison. Now you have both accuracy and balance in regard to the availability of drug treatment. Offender9000 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• 90% of prisoners - looks okay if sourced correctly.

Great - 90% of prisoners have problems with literacy and numeracy as well. So let's put that in. The Department's failure to provide literacy programmes to prisoners is a major factor contributing to re-offending and New Zealand's high rate of recidivism. The department's failure to provide adequate rehabilitation programmes for the vast majority of prisoners therefore contributes to the growth of the prison population. Offender9000 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• In October 2010 - Well NZ usually compares itself to the OECD. I'm sure we are 3rd worst or similar in that lot anyway. Stats will be on their website somewhere.

• In July 2010, - It is a bit of a throw-away remark. If it is true we can get some actual numbers to back it up. Also what does biggest mean? Overall, we can use the DOC and other websites to get actual numbers and stats rather than linking to 2nd-hand versions of them.- SimonLyall (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr English's comments concerning government spending are not 'a throwaway remark'. Mr English has been expressing concern that New Zealand government is facing the biggest deficit in its history for the last two years. Every Department has been asked to cut back its expenditure except for the Corrections Department - which continues to grow. Not only did Mr English say that corrections would soon the government's 'biggest department', he also said that he did not think any more prisons should be built because we can no longer afford them.

In answer to your question what does biggest mean? It means that Corrections employs more staff than any other government department in the country. It may also mean the Corrections budget is growing at such a rate that will soon be bigger than the budget for any other government department. All these points relates the continuing growth of the Department Offender9000 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Solution:

I would like to suggest that general discussions about what should or should not be included will get us absolutely nowhere. I suggest we narrow the discussion down to this one paragraph below which Simon Lyall keeps deleting.

"According to Professor John Pratt at Victoria University, the increase in the prison population has been driven by penal populism - a process whereby the two major political parties in New Zealand (National and Labour) have competed with each other to be 'tough on crime'.[1] Underlying this process is the media coverage of crime which contributes to inaccurate perceptions about the prevalence of violence in society and distorts perceptions of public safety.[2] Much of the drive for longer prison sentences in New Zealand stems from years of media attention given to Garth McVicar[3] of the Sensible Sentencing Trust."[4]

The issue according to Simon Lyall is one of neutrality. In my opinion, whether this paragraph is included or not included is more about relevance. Is this paragraph (about the causes of the growth in the prison population) relevant to the section on the Growth of the Department or not. If it is relevant, is it neutral? Are the sources reliable? Or does it need amending in order to make it neutral. Are there other factors/causes which need to be added to this particular paragraph to provide balance? Let's discuss that first. Otherwise we will just go round in circles. In fact we are going round in circles - so let's get specific. Offender9000 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I encourage crosstalk. You're free to discuss the issues you've both brought up, but do avoid talking about each other (you say, Offender9000/SimonLyall says, yada yada yada). I'll just go ahead and delete it if it happens in the future (we've been getting better about this, though).

Myself, I think it's important that a Finance Minister (someone who deals in policy) thinks that a certain department is creating a large deficit.

I also think that the issue on penal populism is somewhat WP:COATRACKy, but still important as it serves to explains why the prison population is growing. Are there any sources for alternative explanations? That would create balance. But read on...

About "balance". This is one of those issues that we're all going to hate. Wikipedia is often balanced the same way mainstream media is balanced. As an example from the US, if a Republican is espousing their point of view on a network, that network feels obliged to bring on a Democrat. It doesn't necessarily matter if what they say is true. That's why we attribute sources directly into the text on political subjects, to say "take this information with a grain of salt; this person or organization may have bias." It is invariably up to reader to decide what is "true" on political subjects. "Invariably", because even if we presented information as the truth, even if it were the truth, readers who disagree are going to slam an NPOV tag at the top of the article and we'll be back here again. All we can do is say "X says this, Y says that" and let the reader decide/validate their own POV.

Luckily, we probably have a source right from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I may find their position odious (I likely do), but they would provide that "balancing" opinion. I'm sure there are others as well. Would that be a suitable compromise? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a very suitable compromise. It validates the point I have been making all along that it is not appropriate to engage in wholesale deleting of content that one doesn't agree with. What is required is addition (of other perspectives) not deletion of material you don't agree with. Offender9000 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Then we come to the the issue of reliable sources. Prof Pratt says the increase in the prison population has been driven by penal populism. Prof Pratt is a criminologist and world authority on this subject. Garth McVicar (the spokesperson for the SST) is a farmer. He has no qualifications in law, psychology, sociology or criminology. Wikipedia would not regard him as a reliable source on anything to do with the justice system. If there are alternative explanations for the increase in the prison population, more reputable sources than the SST would need to be found. In the wiki article on the Sensible Sentencing Trust, I provided an alternative explanation for the increase in NZ's rate of imprisonment. It read like this: "Income inequality has also been identified as a key factor driving crime and high rates of imprisonment. In The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better the authors argue that for each of eleven different health and social problems: drug abuse, violence, imprisonment, physical health, mental health, education, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in rich countries with huge disparities in wealth. A recent report by the OECD called "Divided we stand" pointed out that since the mid-1980s, the gap between New Zealand's rich and poor has grown faster than in any other developed country." This information comes from reliable sources. It provides a different perspective to that of Prof Pratt - but that got deleted as well - which brings us back to the point that editors need to add material to provide balance rather than censor perspectives they disagree with. Offender9000 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please allow SimonLyall to speak before we continue. I understand he's a little busy. I've collapsed this discussion for now. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have the time to continue this. I'm happy if User:Stuartyeates wants to take over from me. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this mediation was initiated by SimonLyall, and he no longer wishes to continue, that seems to indicate that he has run out of arguments with which to justify what he has been doing for the last five months - deleting material with which he disagrees. I request that if he repeats this behaviour in future that he be banned from editing the pages which have been under discussion. The same applies to Stuartyeates who allowed SimonLyall to represent him in this mediation.Offender9000 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I have other things in my life that mean I don't have enough time to devote to this topic. The NZ Criminal justice system may be you sole interest and you have an hour a day to spend on wikipedia making sure it reflects your point of view. I have other things that are more important to me. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Offender, that was uncalled for. I have tried to get you to talk to Simon with some good faith; you have not.

The reason Stuartyeates bowed out was to keep the dispute 1 to 1. Now that Simon is out, it makes sense to bring Stuart in. But you'll have to treat him like a fellow editor, or I'm not going to continue trying to get you two to talk respectfully. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not just about talking respectfully. It is also about behaving respectfully. Unfortunately, SimonLyall's behaviour is not respectful. It is insulting. He has spent months and months deleting material I have posted and then another two months arguing his point of view in this mediation. We are now all the way to the finishing post and he has clearly "lost" the argument. It is patently obvious that he is withdrawing because he does not have the good faith to accept the compromise that has been offered. To waste months and months of my time and then walk away at the finishing post shows a serious lack of respect.

It is also totally untenable to suggest that he doesn't have time to respond to the mediation but does have time to say he doesn't have time. It only takes two seconds to say: "I agree." Every subsequent comment SimonLyall now makes on this page, shows he does have the time - but is simply unwilling to accept the compromise that has been offered. Offender9000 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Every subsequent edit that SimonLyall makes on wikipedia will also show that he does have time.... This mediation appears to be at an end. Offender9000 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that way. I'm closing this; if the dispute continues, I'd go to AN/I. Here's my advice to the parties:

• Simon, give some leeway. There was plenty of good information provided by Offender, although I do agree that it skewed the article.
• Offender), I'd really caution you against using your book. As I've said previously, your using it is going to be interpreted cynically and you'll lose capital that way (affordance capital, not $$$ capital, but it's that latter bit that irks editors).
• Stop accusing each other of stuff. It helps nobody, ever. WP:AGF, and then assume it some more. Whoever focuses on content more than contributors is going to win whatever argument ends up at AN/I or elsewhere, almost always.

Finally, anything said here cannot be used in any other fora on WP. If someone does end up providing diffs to here, tell me or the committee.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)