Talk:Chris Crewther

Untitled

This whole article reads like it’s a resume and sounds like it was written by the subject or someone close to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.46.56 (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chris Crewther - Cropped Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (July 2021)

Series of IP's and single-issue users have edited this page to promote Crewther. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, malicious editing & vandalism to discredit the subject (July 2021)

A series of IP's and single-issue users have recently edited this page to try to discredit the subject, resulting in numerous responsive edits to edit or re-edit information that is incorrect, incomplete, discredited by later sources than those provided, or which try to 'frame' the subject via 'guilt by association' (in a part recently removed by regular Wikipedia user Bilby for 'failed verification').

User 203.220.186.201 is a known political opponent of the subject (identified through their prior edits via their IP address), who commenced editing the page on 14 July, making many more edits from 19-20 July, and contributing the above notation on this talk page via their earlier used IP address 203.213.46.56: "This whole article reads like it’s a resume and sounds like it was written by the subject or someone close to him." This same person has then allegedly made further edits under alleged new sockpuppet accounts Nospamalot and Bobcat4455, as recently opened for investigation by Wikipedia Administrator Longhair. 203.220.186.201 (aka Nospamalot, Bobcat4455 and 203.213.46.56) has no intention to constructively contribute to the page, only to frame the subject in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the subject, vandalise the page and advantage their own political agenda.

For context, in this case, relevant edits of this page under discussion commenced on 14 July 2021 from 203.220.186.201 (and earlier at the start of May from 203.213.46.56). Changes made included reframing previously neutral sentences such as "serving as its Federal Member of Parliament from 2016-19." to instead read "and serving until his defeat at the 2019 Federal Election.", as well as other changes such as adding that the subject had been unsuccessful in a recent preselection.

The context is that the subject came second in a candidate preselection on 10 July 2021, so this political opponent has attempted to alter the page likely to undermine and discredit the subject for political purposes.

After responsive changes were made following activity by 203.220.186.201, it effectively snowballed from there, with further changes made by 203.220.186.201 that became increasingly more malicious as edits and corrections were made (with many well-sourced and cited parts entirely removed by 203.220.186.201). 203.220.186.201 also made edits to other pages edited by 123.208.64.237, such as edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Slavery_Act_2015 by going through publicly available edits previously made under IP address 123.208.64.237.

Edits back and forth have currently reached close to equilibrium on these other sections though.

However, this has then snowballed further and led to the recent non-neutral section "Focus of media attention" being added by Nospamalot (aka 202.220.186.201) which is much more malicious in targeting the subject to try discredit them, including using both unsourced information and sourced information without full context to try 'frame' the subject in a negative light (including information which is later discredited by other sourced information).

This more malicious section was also added with an accompanying dishonest edit, where Nospamalot (aka 202.220.186.201) states that the subject "...featured prominently in the media across a number of high-profile events, which seem to have been removed from this page." This is dishonest as all this information added by Nospamalot was and is new to the page and had never been previously removed as claimed (as fully evidenced by the page's edit history).

Wikipedia pages should not be able to be misused by political opponents, including by deliberately using sockpuppet accounts, in attempts to discredit political (or ex-political) subjects and to advantage themselves politically. These malicious edits should be deemed as vandalism and non-neutral edits, and thus disallowed.

In terms of the "Focus of media attention" section, as noted by Longhair the title alone is problematic, as most politicians are at times the focus of media attention, so this is first evidence of an attempt to bring negative light to the subject through such a section.

This section could effectively be filled with media articles and content about the (or a) subject both positive, negative and in-between. There are almost always negative articles on politicians of all shapes and sizes, often fed by opponents both from other parties and within (and in a number of cases not true or only partially true (particularly in opinion articles or where particular journalists have political links or bents on all sides), and often later discredited in subsequent media or rebuttals), so any political page could therefore be framed in such a way with similar sections to only highlight such alleged negative content (one only needs to look at Question Time with respect to political opponents trying to discredit one another). Such sections therefore set a bad precedent and a potential back and forth exercise between editors of pages (often non-neutral editors or subjects facing edits, particularly when it comes to political pages).

In summary, please respectively consider removing this recently added (and re-added) section written and added by alleged sockpuppet account Nospamalot from the subject's Wikipedia page, particularly given it contains discredited, incorrect, incomplete and 'framing' information. Please also keep an eye on the page to prevent this vandalism of the page occurring, which as mentioned is being done only to frame the subject in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the subject, vandalise the page and advantage Nospamalot's own political agenda.

It must be noted that, while this page has existed for years, the last week is the first time that serious attempted vandalism of the page, for a political agenda, has occurred.

If this non-neutral section added by alleged sockpuppet account Nospamalot were to be removed, or removed and taken to a talk page discussion, there may be some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption as a way forward, where any reliably sourced information could be included and the remainder discussed until resolution, if any.

Longhair may be able to add more to this conversation given our previous discussions. Thank you also Ivar the Boneful for your time and effort, and contribution to this page and discussion. I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I will add that both sides of the debate were operating multiple accounts, but not in a way where they were switching back and forth to edit this article. Those found using multiple accounts readily admitted to doing so when asked. All older accounts have now been blocked and both editors informed on the policy of using one account per person only. Please note that any further sock puppeteering will be dealt with via an indefinite block for anyone detected violating this policy. -- Longhair\^talk 08:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

As discussed on my I10love9kangaroos84 talk page with Longhair, a Request an edit is asked for to remove the short 'Focus of media attention' section from the page for the reasoning above, plus for the additional/supplementary reasons below.

As previously noted, this is a political opponent added section set up by this person using the now-blocked account Nospamalot. This political opponent has been COI editing from 203.213.46.56 aka 203.220.186.201 aka Nospamalot aka Bobcat4455.

This section is non-neutral, set up by the aforesaid political opponent (under Nospamalot), and set up as a conflict of interest for both "subject discrediting" and "political opponent advantaging" purposes. It contains unsourced, incorrect, later discredited and libellous material.

This section in particular contains violations of the policy on biographies on living persons.

As per Wikipedia policy on policy on biographies on living persons: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous".

As per this policy, this 'Focus of media attention' section contains material that is unsourced (as explained on this talk page), poorly sourced (due to later discredited claims) and libellous (given the events as claimed by the political opponent didn't actually happen).

Accordingly, edits are requested (on the basis of subject COI) to remove this non-neutral section, particularly noting the above policies and information, including violations of the policy on biographies on living persons. As per this template: {{request edit}}

Thank you -- I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I placed the request edit template in nowiki tags so that it is not placed in the edit request queue. A user can also use the Edit Request Wizard to help them make their request. Z1720 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chris Crewther - Cropped Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi Longhair, recent two edits are as per my talk page discussion, and drover's wife talk page discussion, in July. The requested changes were suggestions 1-5 plus another minor change. Changes 1,2,4 and 5 had been agreed to by DW. Wording edits and extra/better independent sources were made to suggestion 3 following initial comments from DW. No requested changes were made by others following the talk page suggestions after more than a month, thus making these changes as per the discussions myself. Note that changes are neutrally written, well/independently sourced, and reflect the discussions/comments in the talk with DW. Happy not to make any further changes/additions after these changes, as per your page edit note, which were necessary for the completeness of the main article after significant redactions were made following the previous sockpuppetry issue. Cheers, I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm somewhat aware of the history here, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and my recollection may be vague. I deal with a lot of COI stuff here but I do recall what's taken place at this article previously with the sock issues, blocks etc. That's all history to me now as there certainly was untoward editing going on which required assistance and I believe that's all now resolved. Requested edits are how to go about making major changes to this article by yourself as you have a clear conflict of interest here. You must ensure to add the requested edit template when requesting edits so that editors performing that type of work are notified of your request. I also believe the edit request template has a queue indicator visible so you can estimate how busy those editors are. You've been cooperative and patient and responded to policy guidance and now that the article has somewhat stabilised you'll need to request edits from herein. While I have this article on my watchlist due to past issues, another administrator may notice conflict of interest editing and respond differently. I'm just making you aware... it's how things must be done here from this point onwards. -- Longhair\^talk 09:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks Longhair. I had tried to follow your process as recommended of requesting edits, but obviously didn't do it the right way in that I requested the edit's via my own talk page and DW's talk page instead of this page/not in the right form. However, I'll read into the process further as per your link above if any further edits are required into the future, which hopefully won't be required from now on. Hopefully the COI template can be removed, noting these comments, such that further mass edits are not made to the page given the good job DW already did significantly redacting most of the article. Perhaps you might consider removing the template yourself to avoid any further major article disruption, noting either 'When the issue has been adequately addressed' or 'Upon determining that the issue has been resolved' or 'When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue, and you are reasonably implementing those changes'?I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)