User talk:AusPolSci

This user participates in
WikiProject Australia.

Corruption Page

Clarified and expanded on the international comparison section.

Included mentions of Australias neigbours status on ICAC.

Included a section to cover the federal ICAC.

Included references and description of Helen Haines ICAC bill

I am happy to receive feedback, comments, queries etc. on the changes I have made.

Scott Morrison Page changes

Changes to the details for the vaccine rollout.

The exsting content appeared to be written in the present tense, I assume it was written during the early stages of the Vaccine rollout.

I provided the definitive statistics with references to his own transcripts and newspaper articles

I am happy to receive feedback, comments, queries etc. on the changes I have made.

Morrison Government Page changes

Changes to the details for the $130 billion JobKeeper package.

I have provided the corrected amount which was $70 billion, this correction was announced by Scott Morrison on May 24.

I am happy to receive feedback, comments, queries etc. on the changes I have made.

Car Park Rorts Scandal

I have provided links and citations in the places I think are most appropriate.

I am happy to receive feedback, comments, queries etc. on the changes I have made.

I have additional content and references to include, I will wait a day to allow for comments on these changes before continuing

Regards

Scott Morrison and French President Page changes (Reversion and Update)

This change was primarily a reversion of the deletion made by Hi DTH89.
I wrote the following to DHT89 to explain the changes.

<<<BEGIN SNIP COPY>>> I am responding to your deletion of my content: You wrote "Not really relevant, and Twitter isn't really a reliable source"
1. Regarding: "Twitter isn't really a reliable source"

I think you may not be aware of who Bevan Shields is

The twitter reference was to Bevan Shields.
Bevan Shield is the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald,
Bevan Shield is a "Blue Tick" account.
Bevan Shield is the person in the video
Bevan Shield is the person asking the questions.
Wikipedia pages have many links to twitter pages.

If you would like, I can add further references to the content, I can suggest multiple news sites such as, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Guardian, The ABC, The BBC.

2. Regarding "Not really relevant",

AUKUS could not happen if Australia did not cancel the contract.
The breaking of the contract with France for the most expensive military purchse/contract is a very significant event
Both events are joined and neither event can be understood without the other event

Noting the concerns, you have raised are not related to accuracy or other significant concern, I am confident this can be resolved quickly.

While I know you deleted my content without first talking to me, I would prefer to wait a day before I reinstate my changes.

<<<END SNIP COPY>>>

HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HarrySullivan1968, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi HarrySullivan1968! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Start of my addition to this false and offensive accusation>>>>
I have also received uncivilised responses by this persons fellow page editor, with the short and curt response beginning with "WTF"
As I am relatively knew to contributing to Wikipedia I am unsure what the process is for resolving this false claims or reporting the uncivilised responses (I am surprised that a page administrator/editor who is presumably experienced would write so offensively)
This experience has made me change my entire view of Wikipedia, I had thought it was a platform for building up knowledge, much like open source software projects, only volunteers are involved, so it is less likely to have these issues.

More details of what was at the core of this false accusation and horrible interaction with an uncivilised page editor is in the next section below.
I have kept a detailed log of all the interactions offline as it would consume far too much space here.

HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC) <<<End of my addition to this false and offensive accusation>>>>[reply]

You want to edit war over placing advertisements for t-shirts in the biography of a national leader. Fair suck of the sauce bottle, cobber. Look, you're new here, we're always looking for editors to do the work, why not find some project screaming out for help and chuck yourself in there? You may safely assume that the article on a current national head of government is adequately covered by experienced editors, we're not whitewashing out any scandals and we're not pumping the guy up. --Pete (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<<<My Response to Peter>>>

Hi Peter, Pete

At no point did I engage in edit warring, this was an accusation made by ohnoitsjamie, I have already explained how this is a false accusation. Why are you motivated now to engage in this false and slanderous accusation? To be clear none of the accusations are valid. I have explained all this previously. If you had read any of the reasonings/explanations I provided you would’ve known the merchandise links were purely as a reference to prove the statement was true. The quote is unprecedented and what is currently written does not provide the reader with any understanding or appreciation of the significance of such a quote. If this was nothing o do with lying, and was about any other international diplomatic issue it would still be just as significant.

As I wrote, I am extremely surprised that;

I would be treated to rudely, to have replies beginning with “wtf” is extraordinary, particular as it is from someone who holds an editor role. I would have multiple senior people slander me I would have my changes made rejected without explanation I would have my reasonings be ignored & not read. (Why someone would be an editor but not read reasonings is very odd to me) Your response is only reinforcing my previous thoughts. I am now seeing that you are going against the wikipedia model, saying that you don’t need any input is the exact oppositive of what Wikipedia is built upon. If this is the case it would be far better to make that clear on the article page, this would prevent anyone wasting time. These behaviours I experienced aren’t ‘normal’, I have been unable to With all these behaviours I am unable to see how that is ‘normal’ behaviour, if it isn’t normal I am unable to find any reasons

HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're all editors here. Why don't you go read a few introductory articles? Nice talking to you. --Pete (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the others handle the edit-warring problem. I'm more concerned with your difficult to understand proposals on talkpages. Concision is best, when proposing anything on an article talkpage. Be straight forward. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Morrison Page - The depth and bredth of the lying accusation

I had included considerable details about the lying incident, including;

The French Ambassador to Australia repeated the claim on National TV
Links to the footage of the national address by the French Ambassador
Links to the video of the French President making the claim
The growth of the claim as it reached out of politics and into the social consciousness, with the phrase "I Don't Think, I Know" being used on many non political items, for example merchandise.
The significance of the political fallout still reverberating 6 months later with Australia's Foreign Minister leaving today (4th of Febraury 2022) to travel to France as another step in fixing the damage done to our relationship with France

These changes were rejected by the pages administrators with stunning levels of petulance, my expectations of wikipedia have changed dramatically after experiencing the uncivil behaviour from those people. These people did not read the details I put in or my explanations, I am at a loss why people who would not want to read content would volunteer to be page editors. I am wondering whether these people are driven by a motivation to protect Scott Morrison's image, rather than build up a useful article.

This & the below section, actually should be in your sandbox, not your talkpage. Also, you're forgetting to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robodebt

The existing article had some ommissions and some errors, it is important to understand what the aim and outcomes were from Gillards changes.

In 1998/99 The Howard government changed the funding model for Centrelink, it was no longer fully funded through appropriations bills, instead it generated revenue based on "Bilateral Partnership Agreements" which rewarded Centrelink for the number of prosecutions it made[21]. The model required 4,000 prosecution referrals[21]. This model included having Centrelink staff and individual fraud investigators having there performance measured against prosecution referrals[22].

The new model required Centrelink staff to have improved data access, in order to proactively contact people prior to debts crystallised. This would also address a significant flaw in this existing model that was acknowledged by Centrelink and the Auditor General[22]. The flaw being a "quantity" based performance scheme treated a $100 debt the same as a complex $1,000,000 debt, thereby incentivising staff to prosecute people whose fraud was small and easier to process.

From 2009/10 to 2011/12, the Gillard Government (Labor Party) reversed the Howard Governments (Liberal Party) prosecution based revenue model for Centrelink[22]. The Gillard Government moved to a debt prevention model and focused fraud investigations onto more complex and larger frauds. The new 'debt prevention' model was immensely successful, with prosecution referrals dropping from 4,608 in 2009/10 to just 1,237 in 2010/11[23]. Significantly the 73% drop in prosecutions resulted in just a 0.0001% drop in debts being recovered[23]. The societal benefit was more important, as prosecutions result in a criminal record for the person involved, the new model is likely to have prevented 3,000 people becoming criminals.

The new model was made policy by the Gillard Government , with announcements for the investment in the updated process announced by the Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek and Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten. By targeting larger scale fraud, such as organised crime the changes were expected to gain "an extra $71 million to the budget"[24][25].

The new 'debt prevention' model had the added benefit of providing staff with messages of thanks from those who had avoided becoming a formal debtor[26]. The new model was successful, recovering $1149.8M in 2011–12 and $1157.6 in 2012–13[27]. The financial success could be seen as a secondary benefit, with just 1,238 prosecutions in 2012-13, the new 'debt prevention' model is likely to have prevented nearly 10,000 people from becoming criminals.