[2016-05-19T08:30:23+1000] Topic is This is the channel for requesting a block review on the English Wikipedia | For help, type !admin followed by your question - we will see it | Unblock discussion logs may be published | If you are not here to request an unblock for yourself, please leave the channel | UTRS: http://utrs.wmflabs.org | If an admin declines your appeal, please do not persist in asking.
[2016-05-19T08:30:23+1000] Set by Snowolf on 16 December 2014 at 4:32:25 AM AEDT
[2016-05-19T08:30:23+1000] -ChanServ- Unblock discussion logs may be published. If you are not here to request an unblock for your account or IP address, please *do not idle* here.
[2016-05-19T08:30:23+1000] Website is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block
[2016-05-19T08:30:24+1000] Mode is +CFcgjntz 5:60
[2016-05-19T08:32:00+1000] <+Huon> hello chris_wot
[2016-05-19T08:33:53+1000] <+Huon> what's the blocked account?
[2016-05-19T08:34:06+1000] <+Huon> Ta bu shi da yu isn't blocked
[2016-05-19T08:34:19+1000] <+Huon> neither is the account that talk page redirects to
[2016-05-19T08:36:06+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, looking, one moment...
[2016-05-19T08:40:42+1000] <+Huon> you also edited as IP 184.108.40.206, didn't you?
[2016-05-19T08:43:27+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, hello?
[2016-05-19T08:45:16+1000] <+Huon> well, the admin blocked that IP address for edit-warring and BLP violations, and blocked the account because it's the same person
[2016-05-19T08:47:37+1000] <+Huon> ok, so what exactly is the question? Why the IP was blocked, or why the block was extended to the account?
[2016-05-19T08:49:11+1000] <+Huon> I haven't looked at the content it felt, but it seems it was an amalgamation of primary sources, which would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY
[2016-05-19T08:49:38+1000] <+Huon> *itself, not "it felt"
[2016-05-19T08:52:45+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, well, one of the sources looks like an advertisement to me
[2016-05-19T08:52:52+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, another is a Reddit post
[2016-05-19T08:53:25+1000] <+Huon> no, but it's not a reliable source either
[2016-05-19T08:53:41+1000] <+Huon> user-submitted content without meaningful editorial oversight
[2016-05-19T08:53:50+1000] <+Huon> well, that was done
[2016-05-19T08:53:55+1000] <+Huon> then you re-added it
[2016-05-19T08:54:58+1000] <+Huon> well, I haven't checked all the sources yet
[2016-05-19T08:55:27+1000] <+Huon> but when BLP concerns are raised, re-adding the same content repeatedly is not a good idea
[2016-05-19T08:56:42+1000] <+Huon> so effectively it still was a primary source
[2016-05-19T09:01:41+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, sorry I'm slow, looking through the content and the discussions
[2016-05-19T09:07:53+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, at a somewhat closer look, particularly at the talk page discussion, there were concerns - beyond the sourcing issues, with undue weight
[2016-05-19T09:08:14+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, while many of the sources I checked are reliable, the level of detail still is excessive
[2016-05-19T09:08:50+1000] <+Huon> well, violating WP:UNDUE can still be a BLP issue
[2016-05-19T09:10:59+1000] <+Huon> looking at the long version of the article I'd get the impression that "Mehajer is a reckless driver who married and was involved in some criminal proceedings that were dismissed - oh by the way, he also dabbles in politics"
[2016-05-19T09:11:07+1000] <+Huon> that's the wrong way round
[2016-05-19T09:11:30+1000] <+Huon> he's not that widely covered because he's an unsafe driver; there are far more of that sort
[2016-05-19T09:12:55+1000] <+Huon> no, but the objection is that the article does not focus on what Mehajer really is notable for
[2016-05-19T09:13:27+1000] <+Huon> in short, the editors felt it was deliberately turned away from focusing on those aspects to cover trivial details about some ancillary issues
[2016-05-19T09:14:13+1000] <+Huon> well, there's no way others can see what you were about to do
[2016-05-19T09:14:44+1000] <+Huon> what others can see was that you edit-warred to keep this content in the article, and argued on the talk page about the supreme importance of this content
[2016-05-19T09:15:06+1000] <+Huon> maybe I missed something; where did you announce you were going to expand other parts of the article, too?
[2016-05-19T09:15:27+1000] <+Huon> I still haven't read the entire talk page, so I may well have overlooked something
[2016-05-19T09:17:19+1000] <+Huon> oh, now those really are primary sources
[2016-05-19T09:18:00+1000] <+Huon> then what were they put on the talk page for?
[2016-05-19T09:18:14+1000] <+Huon> BLP is relevat to talk pages and sandboxes, too, by the way
[2016-05-19T09:18:29+1000] <+Huon> why list sources that are unusable?
[2016-05-19T09:19:25+1000] <+Huon> sorry I missed that, but it seems that was much more of an issue than the overly detailed article itself
[2016-05-19T09:19:49+1000] <+Huon> I see a long, long list of council minutes with no secondary sources whatsoever
[2016-05-19T09:22:08+1000] <+Huon> the IP was blocked on May 17, 10:15 (UTC), right?
[2016-05-19T09:22:31+1000] <+Huon> and your account at 10:18
[2016-05-19T09:22:49+1000] <+Huon> the sandbox was deleted at 10:18, too
[2016-05-19T09:23:18+1000] <+Huon> and the content on the talk page was reverted at 10:26
[2016-05-19T09:23:37+1000] <+Huon> I assume at some point in between the admin wrote the note on your user talk page explaining the block
[2016-05-19T09:23:54+1000] <+Huon> (haven't checked that datestamp)
[2016-05-19T09:24:38+1000] <+Huon> that doesn't look particularly "way after the block" to me; seems quite concurrent
[2016-05-19T09:25:45+1000] <+Huon> yes, Nick-D placed the note on your talk page explaining the block at 10:26, too
[2016-05-19T09:26:03+1000] <+Huon> no, the admin was doing things at that time
[2016-05-19T09:26:34+1000] <+Huon> they decided to act, removed the content, left you an explanation, and blocked you, all at the same time, within minutes
[2016-05-19T09:27:32+1000] <+Huon> well, you already had edit-warred about material that had been removed and contested
[2016-05-19T09:27:53+1000] <+Huon> with BLP explicitly mentioned, unless I'm interpreting things wrong
[2016-05-19T09:28:23+1000] <+Huon> so Nick-D probably considered it likely that, if you weren't blocked, you'd edit-war about the other content, too
[2016-05-19T09:28:23+1000] kyan (~email@example.com) joined the channel
[2016-05-19T09:29:09+1000] kyan (~firstname.lastname@example.org) left the channel ("Leaving")
[2016-05-19T09:29:36+1000] <+Huon> because BLP is highly important and (if I may try my hand at mind-reading) Nick-D probably felt that, if there was just a temporary block, you would sit it out and continue the same behaviour afterwards
[2016-05-19T09:30:22+1000] <+Huon> indefinite isn't infinite; it's only until you demonstrate that you understand the issues and will make sure they don't recur
[2016-05-19T09:31:01+1000] <+Huon> yes
[2016-05-19T09:32:19+1000] <+Huon> well, the standard approach would be on your user talk page, but I understand you lost access to the account
[2016-05-19T09:33:13+1000] <+Huon> then you may want to use the IP talk page and explain that you lost access to the account, yes
[2016-05-19T09:33:31+1000] <+Huon> UTRS is also available, particularly if you prefer some privacy
[2016-05-19T09:33:52+1000] <+Huon> sorry, that's one page I didn't check
[2016-05-19T09:33:58+1000] <+Huon> let me take a look
[2016-05-19T09:34:53+1000] <+Huon> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.127.116.11&diff=prev&oldid=720689536 ?
[2016-05-19T09:36:32+1000] <+Huon> well, to be honest, I think Nick-D probably did you a favor by reverting that
[2016-05-19T09:37:08+1000] <+Huon> it shows that you were upset, and it would probably have been better to write only after cooling down
[2016-05-19T09:38:05+1000] <+Huon> well, what did you want to achieve by that post?
[2016-05-19T09:38:16+1000] <+Huon> it doesn't look like an unblock request to me
[2016-05-19T09:40:00+1000] <+Huon> for the combination of edit-warring and BLP violations, I'd say
[2016-05-19T09:40:56+1000] <+Huon> I'm still not entirely sure I have a full understanding of the situation, but it seems you were felt to be in the process of summarizing every single piece of negative information you could get
[2016-05-19T09:43:26+1000] <+Huon> well, the collection in the sandbox seems to focus on claimed conflicts of interest, doesn't it?
[2016-05-19T09:44:49+1000] <+Huon> yes
[2016-05-19T09:45:49+1000] <+Huon> maybe I'm misreading it, but to me it seems to be a collection of "In council session X Mehajer voted on issue Y in which he is financially involved"; am I misunderstanding that?
[2016-05-19T09:46:49+1000] <+Huon> sorry, not familiar with the terminology - what's a DA?
[2016-05-19T09:47:57+1000] <+Huon> and more than half of all DAs the council decided on were submitted by Mehajer and his family?
[2016-05-19T09:49:07+1000] <+Huon> yes, so you obviously did not create an unbiased record of his work as a councillor, but focused on issues where he may be seen to have had a conflict of interest
[2016-05-19T09:50:25+1000] <+Huon> I assume the Auburn council isn't the only one Mehajer and his family sent DAs to, is it?
[2016-05-19T09:50:48+1000] <+Huon> or is his entire business in that one district (or whatever Auburn is formally called)?
[2016-05-19T09:52:11+1000] <+Huon> and you looked for relevant DAs with other councils? I find it very difficult to believe that such a business empire would be concentrated within one council
[2016-05-19T09:56:10+1000] <+Huon> well, notorious or not, I think you will find it very difficult to obtain a consensus for this level of detail
[2016-05-19T09:56:40+1000] <+Huon> just imagine we'd write the article on Barack Obama in that level of detail
[2016-05-19T09:57:30+1000] <+Huon> I don't think you were advised of that before the block, but you were thoroughly aware that there were BLP concerns about that page and your conduct there
[2016-05-19T09:58:14+1000] <+Huon> the article, mostly, but putting it on the talk page doesn't help, of course
[2016-05-19T09:58:36+1000] <+Huon> in fact, I haven't followed that up, but I saw a comment of yours according to which a previous version of the page was deleted as an attack page
[2016-05-19T09:59:12+1000] <+Huon> the admin gave a list of things that, in combination, led to your block
[2016-05-19T09:59:30+1000] <+Huon> and putting that content on the talk page is mentioned in the list
[2016-05-19T10:01:33+1000] <+Huon> well, the way I read Nick-D's comments, it seems "removing inappropriate content" had already been tried in another example, to no avail
[2016-05-19T10:01:49+1000] <+Huon> thus Nick-D probably didn't believe it would work any better now
[2016-05-19T10:02:18+1000] <+Huon> as I mentioned, WP:UNDUE
[2016-05-19T10:04:30+1000] <+Huon> well, I have glanced at quite a few references now, and they all describe him as "Auburn vice mayor" or "councillor" when they report on him - that's his primary claim to notability, clearly
[2016-05-19T10:06:50+1000] <+Huon> well, where is a source that introduces him as reckless driver? "Salim Mehajer, well-known for his many car accidents, now has won a city council election"? I don't see anything of that kind
[2016-05-19T10:07:23+1000] <+Huon> no, I was making up a quote
[2016-05-19T10:08:20+1000] <+Huon> the article made Mehajer look like a person known for car crashes who happens to also have a political and business career
[2016-05-19T10:08:44+1000] <+Huon> the sources describe Mehajer as a politician or businessman who also happens to be involved in car crashes
[2016-05-19T10:09:49+1000] <+Huon> well, I don't see any sources indicating that's his primary claim to notability
[2016-05-19T10:13:01+1000] <+Huon> well, the intimidation charges (which were dismissed but still get about as much space as his political career) certainly don't make the article look less like an attack page
[2016-05-19T10:16:10+1000] <+Huon> unless the dismissed charges are a major event (say Bill Clinton's impeachment), I don't see why they should be mentioned at all, for example
[2016-05-19T10:16:28+1000] <+Huon> Someone claimed something about him, it didn't hold up - what does that tell us about him?
[2016-05-19T10:17:59+1000] <+Huon> According to Herat, Mehajer told him "Who the f..k are you to talk to me? What gives you the right to tell me how to use this machine? ... I am going to find out where you live motherf..ker, and I am going to kidnap your children." Mehajer's response in court was that "Those words dont exist in my vocabulary. Maybe when I was in primary school."
[2016-05-19T10:18:32+1000] <+Huon> that's an incredible level of detail, and what do we ultimately learn from that?
[2016-05-19T10:19:01+1000] <+Huon> yes, yet more of a quote
[2016-05-19T10:19:29+1000] <+Huon> However, The Australian noted that during his wedding he stated, in front of reporters and TV cameras: "Whats up Channel 9 viewers? This is how you do a wedding. Floyd Mayweather, you got no chance over me, motherf..ker".
[2016-05-19T10:19:57+1000] <+Huon> by now we're at more content on whether or not he uses the word "motherfucker" than about what he did in two years as deputy mayor
[2016-05-19T10:20:14+1000] <+Huon> don't you see that as a little unbalanced?
[2016-05-19T10:21:05+1000] <+Huon> well, what the "political career" section already does is note various investigations about him
[2016-05-19T10:21:55+1000] <+Huon> so it seems the negative content finds its way into the article quickly
[2016-05-19T10:23:59+1000] <+Huon> I'd have to spend more effort on researching newspaper archives than I'd be willing to do now, but with your various talk page comments, it does seem you are less than neutral about Mehajer
[2016-05-19T10:25:33+1000] <+Huon> sorry, what exactly is the question?
[2016-05-19T10:26:32+1000] <+Huon> well, personally I'd say two or three lines would have sufficed to sum it up
[2016-05-19T10:26:52+1000] <+Huon> the main points are that he's often involved in accidents and once hurt two women
[2016-05-19T10:27:13+1000] <+Huon> everything beyond that is bordering on celebrity gossip
[2016-05-19T10:28:16+1000] <+Huon> you are, of course, welcome to do so, but sometimes we have to accept that consensus disagrees with us
[2016-05-19T10:28:53+1000] <+Huon> happened to me too, and I still think I'm right - but I wandered away from that article and found more fruitful pursuits
[2016-05-19T10:30:17+1000] <+Huon> personally I'd say such a short summary, likely within a "private life" section that also covers his marriage, would have been appropriate
[2016-05-19T10:31:46+1000] <+Huon> please note that it's just my personal opinion here, based only on what I read today; I hadn't heard about him before
[2016-05-19T10:33:56+1000] <+Huon> and the editor explained on the talk page that they found the level of detail far too great
[2016-05-19T10:34:57+1000] <+Huon> "I just deleted an incredible 11,843 bytes and four long paragraphs of writing about car crashes he'd gotten into. It even reports on his wife having allgedly gotten a defect notice for her car! The obsessive detail, the comments of the magistrates, the responses from Mehajer, and the entire contents of the third paragraph around petty traffic offences, the dismissed charge, etc. are massive overkill and should not be in this article period."
[2016-05-19T10:35:07+1000] <+Huon> I hope that didn't get cut off by IRC
[2016-05-19T10:35:40+1000] <+Huon> they even propose a way towards a compromise
[2016-05-19T10:38:04+1000] <+Huon> "I can see a case for including the cases on which he was found guilty, albeit in a much, more brief fashion"
[2016-05-19T10:38:27+1000] <+Huon> and further down, "Noting that he was found guilty of a crime and what the sentence was is perfectly appropriate for this article."
[2016-05-19T10:40:48+1000] <+Huon> well, there was far more than that
[2016-05-19T10:41:30+1000] <+Huon> Instead, the magistrate found that Mehajer's inability to control such a powerful car caused him to "[make] bad choices and it ended in catastrophe".
[2016-05-19T10:41:48+1000] <+Huon> he motorist then says he drove off but was followed by Mehajer and when they again stopped at a set of traffic lights Mehajer got out of his ute, yelled, punched and kicked his car.
[2016-05-19T10:41:56+1000] <+Huon> that's trivia, all of it
[2016-05-19T10:43:35+1000] <+Huon> "He was found guilty of the malicious damage charge" is all he was convicted of
[2016-05-19T10:43:52+1000] <+Huon> there's no need to get into the "he said-she said" in a biographical article
[2016-05-19T10:44:16+1000] <+Huon> we're not a chronicle of every event that ever happened to him, not even if there's a newspaper report about it
[2016-05-19T10:45:06+1000] <+Huon> oh yes, if it leads to an article that primarily focuses on his court cases and negative publicity, then that's very much a BLP issue
[2016-05-19T10:45:31+1000] <+Huon> just imagine, for argument's sake, that someone began to add positive information in the same level of detail
[2016-05-19T10:45:52+1000] <+Huon> where is the paragraph on his relative winning a beauty pageant?
[2016-05-19T10:46:21+1000] <+Huon> where are the various election-related quotes that surely have been published in the news?
[2016-05-19T10:47:40+1000] <+Huon> and how long did you envisage the article to be, in total?
[2016-05-19T10:47:45+1000] kyan (~email@example.com) joined the channel
[2016-05-19T10:47:49+1000] kyan (~firstname.lastname@example.org) left the channel ("Leaving")
[2016-05-19T10:47:58+1000] kyan (~email@example.com) joined the channel
[2016-05-19T10:48:04+1000] kyan (~firstname.lastname@example.org) left the channel ("Leaving")
[2016-05-19T10:48:08+1000] <+Huon> well, that too may be a problem
[2016-05-19T10:48:18+1000] <+Huon> he is, after all, ultimately small fry
[2016-05-19T10:50:23+1000] <+Huon> not Australia
[2016-05-19T10:53:19+1000] <+Huon> well, he's obviously rich enough to stage that lavish wedding
[2016-05-19T10:54:40+1000] <+Huon> but he's a minor politician, and his notoriety seems to be entirely local
[2016-05-19T10:58:21+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, you seem to be disregarding half of what I said
[2016-05-19T10:58:32+1000] <+Huon> you were not blocked because "one section was too long"
[2016-05-19T10:58:44+1000] <+Huon> that was only one symptom of a larger issue
[2016-05-19T10:59:18+1000] <+Huon> you seemed to be involved in collecting massive amonts of negative information, much of it based on dubious, inappropriate sources
[2016-05-19T10:59:48+1000] <+Huon> no, that's entirely correct
[2016-05-19T11:00:13+1000] <+Huon> need I quote you on how his DAs all are controversial in some way?
[2016-05-19T11:00:50+1000] <+Huon> that's another part, yes
[2016-05-19T11:28:24+1000] <+Huon> practically everything put on the talk page, I'd say
[2016-05-19T11:29:39+1000] <+Huon> because those are primary sources, not subject to editorial oversight, that are used to create a synthesis and make a point that no reliable secondary source makes
[2016-05-19T11:29:57+1000] <+Huon> and yes, the Auburn Council is a highly inappropriate source for a BLP
[2016-05-19T11:32:51+1000] <+Huon> you dumped some 40k of content on the talk page
[2016-05-19T11:34:31+1000] <+Huon> the "developments", "home" and "council car park" sections have no place on Wikipedia, article or talk page
[2016-05-19T11:35:35+1000] <+Huon> basically, because WP:BLPPRIMARY says so
[2016-05-19T11:35:47+1000] <+Huon> we should not base BLP content on such public records
[2016-05-19T11:35:55+1000] <+Huon> and that goes for a talk page too
[2016-05-19T11:36:08+1000] <+Huon> this is not useful research aimed at improving the article
[2016-05-19T11:38:08+1000] <+Huon> well, people informed you of other BLP concerns before - what happened?
[2016-05-19T11:38:21+1000] <+Huon> Why was it reasonable to assume that your reaction now would be different?
[2016-05-19T11:40:40+1000] <+Huon> you were informed in the note accompanying the block
[2016-05-19T11:41:21+1000] <+Huon> yes, to prevent further BLP issues
[2016-05-19T11:42:52+1000] <+Huon> well, I'm sorry, probably I'm doing you an injustice here, but from the outside it looks entirely reasonable to expect that you would have argued, would have edit warred, and would have tried to push that content onto Wikipedia in some way
[2016-05-19T11:43:14+1000] <+Huon> well, we have the selection of sources you found
[2016-05-19T11:44:35+1000] <+Huon> the selection is rather one-sided
[2016-05-19T11:44:53+1000] <+Huon> I did a quick Google News search on Mehajer some time in between
[2016-05-19T11:45:11+1000] <+Huon> what would have been difficult to put a negative spin on seems to be missing
[2016-05-19T11:46:50+1000] <+Huon> well, the most relevant from the first page of Google News hits, beyond celebrity gossip, is this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/salim-mehajer-gets-65m-lifeline-to-complete-project/news-story/fbdc14dbb346a83cb70e109c46036172
[2016-05-19T11:49:11+1000] <+Huon> I missed that because I assumed a "Property development and Auburn City Council" section would contain sources relevant to both
[2016-05-19T11:59:40+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, sorry, was reading sources...
[2016-05-19T12:01:02+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, I apologize, but I noted repeatedly that I was giving opinions based on cursory readings of what in total amounts to many dozens of pages' worth of information
[2016-05-19T12:01:26+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, in this particular instance I indeed screwed up; I'm sorry for that
[2016-05-19T12:03:07+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, I'm terribly sorry, but I'll have to call it a night and get some sleep
[2016-05-19T12:03:41+1000] <+Huon> there is UTRS, of course
[2016-05-19T12:03:58+1000] <+Huon> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System
[2016-05-19T12:20:15+1000] Huon (~shogunat@wikipedia/Huon) left IRC (Quit: Bye!)