839:. 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?
590:
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.
728:
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.
763:
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
393:"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"
626:
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.
905:? 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."
1180:"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."
812:
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 -
570:
It is precisely this confrontational attitude which is causing you problems. Knowledge 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
524:
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
727:
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
531:
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
432:
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
981:
it says say "The
Department of Corrections has been deleting information about the Department on a page on Knowledge. 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
746:
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
631:
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
625:
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
605:
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
589:
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
515:
Much of your contribution is unsuitable for
Knowledge, 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
475:
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
1099:
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
711:
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
1607:
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
762:
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
61:
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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)), the
412:
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
1153:
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
731:
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
551:
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
1005:
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
712:
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.
772:
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.
1023:
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.
705:"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."
162:
which says "A ban was also placed on the Knowledge 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.
1068:
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
794:{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.}
413:
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.
494:
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.
132:
1160:, 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.
536:(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.
816:
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
1599:. 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.
821:
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.
1285:
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
520:"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."
192:. 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
1095:(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: "
1164:"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.<ref: -->
806:
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:
428:
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
267:(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.)
476:
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".
292:
136:
1277:
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
982:
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?
174:
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" (
1189:
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.
1596:
939:
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
1507:
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 -
747:
will happen to your contributions, seems completely pointless to me. I really hope this forum will resolve the matter so that contributing becomes worthwhile.
117:
1077:(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.
552:
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.
50:
96:
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.
1281:. Attempts to find a solution so all parties involved can work together productively and collaboratively do not have appeared to have worked . This
685:
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.
185:
110:
121:
808:"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)"
648:
452:
203:
vis: the department is acting criminally and the problems at the root of this wikipedia dispute are about content rather than COI or NPOV.
149:
999:
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.
81:
178:
1006:(mainly the DOC and SST articles) much more closely reflect your views than the views held by the organisations they are about? -
1608:
always, free to pursue other forums of dispute resolution if this conflict continues to be an obstacle to collaborative editing.
222:
53:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
1046:
533:
244:
227:
17:
139:
debate (the failure of that last may have been my fault, it appears I chose the wrong venue, which is why I withdrew).
128:
125:
1645:
The Sensible Sentencing Trust was established by Garth McVicar to promote tougher prison sentences for offenders.
1451:
The editor will acknowledge he has a Knowledge:Conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand justice system.
1042:
1464:
Alternatively for 2 and 3, before inserting edits into the articles - will seek input from the WP:NZ community.
1178:
The reference said no such thing. It actually states the SST has a vision of a safer New Zealand, and a mission
1167:
The Sensible Sentencing Trust was established by Garth McVicar to promote tougher prison sentences for offenders
87:
978:
894:
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
193:
159:
384:
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
142:
There have also been two instances where the subject has used the text of the mediation in other contexts (
1338:
1328:
1286:
1282:
1270:
1211:
1137:
1082:
1029:
987:
965:
948:
927:
922:
Since SimonLyall was the person who 'outed' you, I suggest you direct your questions about outing to him.
910:
844:
826:
778:
737:
690:
656:
615:
595:
557:
500:
460:
438:
338:
171:
155:
106:
75:
1305:
1237:
1489:
1469:
1401:
1346:
1250:
1105:
1053:
752:
717:
576:
541:
481:
418:
364:
318:
1616:
1516:
1493:
1473:
1419:
1405:
1391:
1377:
1364:
1350:
1332:
1319:
1309:
1254:
1241:
1228:
1215:
1198:
1141:
1109:
1086:
1057:
1033:
1015:
991:
969:
952:
931:
914:
848:
830:
782:
756:
741:
721:
694:
660:
619:
599:
580:
561:
545:
504:
485:
464:
442:
422:
368:
342:
322:
1512:
1360:
1224:
1011:
433:
psychology, sociology or criminology, he would not be regarded as a reliable source on this subject.
1301:
1233:
1100:
talk page." I will shortly move the threaded discussion to the talk page as per those instructions.
683:"I have no problems with references using flying blind, particularly if they give a page number."
1041:
How do you propose to address the conflict of interest inherent with your continued editing of
1373:
1324:
1314:
1207:
1194:
1133:
1078:
1025:
983:
961:
944:
923:
906:
840:
822:
774:
764:
733:
686:
652:
611:
591:
571:
characterised this subject so will make no more comment except to new and relevant questions.
553:
496:
456:
434:
334:
175:
71:
1485:
1465:
1415:
1397:
1387:
1342:
1278:
1246:
1101:
1049:
940:
902:
748:
713:
607:
572:
537:
477:
414:
360:
314:
1508:
1434:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section
1356:
1220:
1007:
525:
has been removed. Why are you still making an issue of a concern that has been addressed?
199:
The subject's view of both the department and wikipedia's processes, is best summed up in
30:
1274:
189:
1454:
The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to the New Zealand justice system.
250:
The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to the New Zealand justice system.
1290:
1610:
1369:
1190:
1341:
behaviour or a profound ignorance of the standards required of Knowledge editors.
400:
2)It no longer claims that Corrections is in breach of its statutory obligations.
1411:
1383:
206:
All the other issues are escalations / side shows of this core COI/NPOV issue.
647:
Nothing that happened in mediation can be mentioned or discussed here, as per
451:
Nothing that happened in mediation can be mentioned or discussed here, as per
1595:
signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to
1045:, an organisation with which you are in serious disagreement, as shown here:
1438:
and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
406:
Why are you making an issue of concerns that have already been addressed?
1355:
Confirmed (I feel) by his edits today and answers to questions above -
1457:
The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to penal populism.
253:
The editor will agree not to edit articles relating to penal populism.
1075:
LauraHale removed one of my posts. That's how edit wars get started.
215:
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
188:
wikipedia page to promote his view of Corrections Department and
181:
44:
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
1623:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1646:
1171:
859:
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
397:
1)The Criticism section is no longer in its 'current' form.
256:
The editor will agree to stop outting wikipedia editors.
1460:
The editor will agree to stop outting wikipedia editors
1183:
1157:
901:
Do you see any conflict between what you say above and
329:
326:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
200:
146:
143:
403:
3)The contents have been balanced by other comments?
263:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
1484:
Agree with proposed solution as at time of writing.
1447:
To try to move this debate to conclusion I suggest:
62:
page will be deleted. The current date and time is:
29:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
353:Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
307:Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
813:thereby adding to the perception that they did.
39:No further edits should be made to this page.
247:in relation to the New Zealand justice system.
1629:No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
1588:Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
679:"I repeatedly added references to the book"
302:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
116:The issue has been discussed at the on the
51:Knowledge:Requests for comment/User conduct
513:To Daveosaurous: At your point 9 it says:
391:To Daveosaurous: At you point 8 it says:
979:Corrections Department censors Knowledge
137:Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
1638:
1410:This appears to have been demonstrated
703:To Nealefamily. Previously you wrote:
632:has changed. It has changed enormously.
186:Department of Corrections (New Zealand)
111:Department of Corrections (New Zealand)
1132:material rather than deleting it.....
122:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New Zealand
518:I note also that Stuartyeates wrote:
243:The editor will acknowledge he has a
7:
819:"we are employed by the Department"
732:editor who probably doesn't exist.
677:In regard to Flying Blind, you say
854:Applicable policies and guidelines
210:Applicable policies and guidelines
150:The privileged nature of mediation
24:
1297:Users who endorse this summary:
1203:Users who endorse this summary:
293:full view of archived discussion
31:user conduct request for comment
223:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
194:already been found to be in COI
1494:07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
767:and according to the mediator.
245:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
228:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
148:) as explicitly prohibited by
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
874:Users endorsing this response
1269:Offender9000 has engaged in
1128:"....balance is achieved by
196:over the edits on the page.
1617:22:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
1597:this page's discussion page
1517:22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
135:and most recently a failed
64:15:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
1665:
1647:http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/
1474:20:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1172:http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/
184:) and has been using the
1420:10:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1264:Outside view by LauraHale
1242:08:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
1229:08:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
1216:07:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
1199:03:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
1142:20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
1087:15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
1058:06:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
1043:Sensible Sentencing Trust
992:23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
953:23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
915:23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
849:20:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
831:13:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
783:00:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
757:23:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
742:20:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
722:22:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
695:21:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
681:. So what? You also said
661:21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
620:07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
600:19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
581:05:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
562:20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
546:06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
505:19:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
486:05:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
465:20:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
443:20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
423:06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
369:09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
343:06:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
323:10:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
1626:Please do not modify it.
1406:05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
1392:19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1378:09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1365:08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1351:05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
1333:06:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
1320:04:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
1310:03:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
1255:00:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
1110:00:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
1034:05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1016:03:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
970:05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
932:05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
707:What are your concerns?
160:blog post outing editors
101:Statement of the dispute
36:Please do not modify it.
1118:Outside view by Moriori
889:Questions to named user
379:Questions to certifiers
120:, several times on the
113:and related articles.
105:Ongoing NPOV issues by
1396:Reluctantly, I concur
1293:pushing going forward.
172:User_talk:Offender9000
156:User_talk:Offender9000
107:User_talk:Offender9000
802:Response to concerns
49:To remain listed at
1564:Comment by parties:
1534:Comment by parties:
1480:Comment by parties:
1273:behavior to push a
1575:Comment by others:
1545:Comment by others:
1503:Comment by others:
1429:Proposed solutions
835:In regard to your
182:associated website
1382:Per Daveosaurus.
1158:In this edit here
534:original research
1656:
1649:
1643:
1628:
1613:
1317:
1063:Additional views
837:cause of concern
167:Cause of concern
133:failed mediation
65:
38:
1664:
1663:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1644:
1640:
1633:
1624:
1611:
1605:
1590:
1557:
1527:
1445:
1431:
1339:WP:BATTLEGROUND
1337:This is either
1315:
1287:WP:BATTLEGROUND
1283:WP:BATTLEGROUND
1271:WP:BATTLEGROUND
1266:
1154:Offender9000.
1120:
1065:
977:In the blog at
891:
876:
856:
804:
791:
381:
304:
265:
238:
236:Desired outcome
212:
169:
103:
63:
57:dispute with a
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1662:
1660:
1651:
1650:
1637:
1635:
1632:
1631:
1604:
1601:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1444:
1441:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1423:
1422:
1408:
1394:
1380:
1367:
1353:
1335:
1322:
1312:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1258:
1257:
1244:
1231:
1218:
1176:
1175:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1090:
1089:
1064:
1061:
890:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
881:
875:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
866:
855:
852:
803:
800:
798:
790:
787:
786:
785:
769:
768:
725:
724:
698:
697:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
634:
633:
628:
627:
603:
602:
586:
585:
584:
583:
565:
564:
508:
507:
491:
490:
489:
488:
470:
469:
468:
467:
446:
445:
380:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
371:
350:
349:
348:
347:
345:
332:
303:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
287:
283:
279:
275:
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
248:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
225:
211:
208:
190:penal populism
168:
165:
102:
99:
93:
92:
91:
68:
48:
46:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1661:
1648:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1630:
1627:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1602:
1600:
1598:
1594:
1587:
1585:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1573:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1554:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1524:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1442:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1436:is not a vote
1428:
1426:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1292:
1291:point of view
1289:behavior and
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:point of view
1272:
1263:
1261:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1187:
1185:
1181:
1174:</ref: -->
1173:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1145:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1000:
998:
994:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
972:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
895:
888:
882:
880:
879:
878:
877:
873:
867:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
853:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
814:
810:
809:
801:
799:
796:
795:
788:
784:
780:
776:
771:
770:
766:
761:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
744:
743:
739:
735:
729:
723:
719:
715:
710:
709:
708:
706:
702:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
630:
629:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
582:
578:
574:
569:
568:
567:
566:
563:
559:
555:
550:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
535:
530:
526:
522:
521:
517:
512:
506:
502:
498:
493:
492:
487:
483:
479:
474:
473:
472:
471:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
411:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
394:
390:
386:
385:
378:
372:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
346:
344:
340:
336:
333:
330:
327:
324:
320:
316:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
301:
294:
290:
288:
286:
284:
282:
280:
278:
276:
274:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
262:
255:
252:
249:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
235:
229:
226:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
209:
207:
204:
202:
197:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
179:9780473180751
177:
173:
166:
164:
161:
157:
153:
151:
147:
144:
140:
138:
134:
130:
127:
123:
119:
114:
112:
108:
100:
98:
97:
89:
86:
83:
80:
77:
73:
70:
69:
67:
60:
56:
52:
45:
40:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1641:
1634:
1625:
1622:
1609:
1606:
1592:
1591:
1583:
1574:
1563:
1558:
1544:
1533:
1528:
1502:
1479:
1463:
1446:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1424:
1325:Stuartyeates
1296:
1268:
1267:
1259:
1208:Stuartyeates
1202:
1188:
1179:
1177:
1166:
1165:
1156:
1152:
1134:Offender9000
1129:
1127:
1096:
1079:Offender9000
1074:
1067:
1066:
1038:
1037:
1026:Offender9000
1020:
1019:
1002:
1001:
996:
995:
984:Stuartyeates
974:
973:
962:Offender9000
957:
956:
945:Stuartyeates
936:
935:
924:Offender9000
919:
918:
907:Stuartyeates
898:
897:
893:
892:
858:
857:
841:Offender9000
836:
834:
823:Offender9000
818:
815:
811:
807:
805:
797:
793:
792:
775:Offender9000
745:
734:Offender9000
730:
726:
704:
700:
699:
687:Offender9000
682:
678:
653:Stuartyeates
612:Stuartyeates
604:
592:Offender9000
554:Offender9000
528:
527:
523:
519:
514:
510:
509:
497:Offender9000
457:Stuartyeates
435:Offender9000
429:
409:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
392:
388:
387:
383:
382:
352:
351:
335:Stuartyeates
306:
305:
266:
214:
213:
205:
198:
170:
154:
141:
115:
104:
95:
94:
84:
78:
72:Offender9000
58:
54:
47:
43:
35:
28:
1486:Daveosaurus
1466:NealeFamily
1398:NealeFamily
1343:Daveosaurus
1247:Daveosaurus
1182:I fixed it
1102:Daveosaurus
1050:Daveosaurus
765:Wiki policy
749:NealeFamily
714:NealeFamily
573:Daveosaurus
538:Daveosaurus
478:Daveosaurus
415:Daveosaurus
361:NealeFamily
315:Daveosaurus
201:these edits
158:also has a
1555:Template 3
1525:Template 2
1509:SimonLyall
1443:Template 1
1357:SimonLyall
1221:SimonLyall
1008:SimonLyall
516:material).
325:e.g. here
124:, on COIN
1302:LauraHale
1279:WP:OUTING
1234:LauraHale
941:WP:OUTING
903:WP:OUTING
608:WP:ATTACK
328:and here
118:talk page
943:policy?
789:Response
606:into an
82:contribs
1612:MBisanz
1603:Summary
1370:Moriori
1316:gadfium
1191:Moriori
960:Ditto.
131:, in a
1412:Nick-D
1384:Avenue
1130:adding
1069:views.
649:policy
610:page.
453:policy
430:adding
59:single
129:twice
16:<
1559:3)
1529:2)
1513:talk
1490:talk
1470:talk
1416:talk
1402:talk
1388:talk
1374:talk
1361:talk
1347:talk
1329:talk
1306:talk
1251:talk
1238:talk
1225:talk
1212:talk
1195:talk
1184:here
1138:talk
1106:talk
1083:talk
1054:talk
1030:talk
1012:talk
988:talk
966:talk
949:talk
928:talk
911:talk
845:talk
827:talk
779:talk
753:talk
738:talk
718:talk
691:talk
657:talk
616:talk
596:talk
577:talk
558:talk
542:talk
532:and
501:talk
482:talk
461:talk
439:talk
419:talk
365:talk
339:talk
319:talk
176:ISBN
145:and
126:once
88:logs
76:talk
55:same
1593:All
1097:All
455:.
152:.
109:at
1515:)
1492:)
1472:)
1418:)
1404:)
1390:)
1376:)
1363:)
1349:)
1331:)
1308:)
1253:)
1240:)
1227:)
1214:)
1197:)
1186:.
1170:.
1140:)
1108:)
1085:)
1056:)
1048:?
1032:)
1021:A.
1014:)
1003:Q.
997:A.
990:)
975:Q.
968:)
958:A.
951:)
937:Q.
930:)
920:A.
913:)
899:Q.
847:)
829:)
781:)
755:)
740:)
720:)
693:)
659:)
651:.
618:)
598:)
579:)
560:)
544:)
529:A.
511:Q.
503:)
484:)
463:)
441:)
421:)
410:A.
389:Q.
367:)
341:)
321:)
66:.
33:.
1511:(
1488:(
1468:(
1414:(
1400:(
1386:(
1372:(
1359:(
1345:(
1327:(
1304:(
1249:(
1236:(
1223:(
1210:(
1193:(
1144:"
1136:(
1104:(
1081:(
1052:(
1039:Q
1028:(
1010:(
986:(
964:(
947:(
926:(
909:(
843:(
825:(
777:(
751:(
736:(
716:(
701:Q
689:(
655:(
614:(
594:(
575:(
556:(
540:(
499:(
480:(
459:(
437:(
417:(
363:(
337:(
331:.
317:(
295:)
291:(
90:)
85:·
79:·
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.