Talk:HM Prison Pentridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Melbourne (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon HM Prison Pentridge is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of prisons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Last Execution[edit]

The original section on the subject repeated the facts three times, and dealt much with the trial and conviction, rather than the execution itself. I trimmed it down and add a pointer to the original article for interested readers. The sources itself were also a large mix, not appropriate for footnotes, including a list of 21 (!) consecutive footnote, images as source, wikipedia itself as sources etc. If some of this is to be repeated it needs to be done properly. --Muhandes (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Bepopalula. Suspected sockpuppet.[edit]

User Bepopalula has been running a biased campaign on these pages trying to include unnecessary information about the execution of Ronald Ryan. The information has been added to the following articles...

In all cases, the information is a rambling attempt to show that Ronald Ryan was wrongly convicted and executed. It is poorly written, badly cited, largely subjective, and does not belong in any of the articles it has been repeatedly put in to.
Bepopalula has repeatedly replaced the info, and his edit summary claim that my (and others') attempts to remove this are labelled as vandalism.
While preparing this response, I noticed that the concerns had already been raised previously with regard to user, who made identical changes to the exact same four pages. Can administrators take note of my concerns and take appropriate action as needed. Thanks.--Dmol (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I am no suckpuppet. The constant accusations of suspected sockpuppetry are an attempt to stop users from contributing or reverting vandalized edits. Please be aware that every Wikipedia article relating to Ronald Ryan has very often been vandalized within the last two years, mostly by User Purrum, followed a short time later by another user who vandalizes the article in exactly the same manner. All contributions based on citations and references might look similar BECAUSE the contributions have been extracted from similar citations and references. There is no bias nor campaign about the guilt of Ronald Ryan, it is the personal views of a few users. User Purrum's opinion on every 'factual' contributions, citations, references and new articles relating to Ronald Ryan do not belong anywhere. Evidence of Purrum's past history records show Purrum's persistent disruptive edits and vandalism on everything relating to Ronald Ryan. Purrum claims to know that Ronald Ryan was guilty, even though hundreds of citations, references and news articles by criminal experts say otherwise. Whether Ronald Ryan was guilty or not is irrelevant, but the public has a right to be informed of the 'facts'. Purrum's lengthy talk page is evidence of unreliable contributions resulting in Wikipedia requests for speedy deletion of many articles. User Dmol considers this as good record of edits. There is ample evidence in Purrum's lengthy history records of contributions that prove the overwhelming number of persistent disruptive edits and vandalism on everything relating to Ronald Ryan. This is not an allegation as suggested by User Dmol, but in fact the truth. As for me, I have done nothing wrong, my history records of contributions proves this. I have added original contributions relating to Ronald Ryan made by other users, which Purrum has vandalized time and time again over the past two years. I ask administrators to look at the evidence and the false allegations against me. Thanks. Bepopalula (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the place to request admin attention - since Dmol has raised concerns of sockpuppetry and Bepopalula has requested those allegations be examined, I'll post it to WP:SPI. --GenericBob (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
...and Bepopalula has been banned as a sock of Escapeeyes, who has an extensive history of sock abuse related to Ronald Ryan. Based on past history, you can probably expect him to show up again under a new nickname or using an open proxy, but his editing style is pretty distinctive.
FWIW, having a few pages deleted for non-notability is a very minor issue; different people have different ideas about what counts as notable. Sockpuppetry (even poorly-disguised sockpuppetry) is a different kettle of fish, which is why you keep getting banned. --GenericBob (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:HM Prison Pentridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The end of the first section, about the development of the property, is nothing more than an uncited, one-sided statement of opinion. -- (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)