Saturday, May 21, 2016


[2016-05-19T08:30:23+1000] chris_wot ( joined the channel
[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: | 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
[2016-05-19T08:30:24+1000] Mode is +CFcgjntz 5:60
[2016-05-19T08:30:36+1000] hello, it's Ta bu shi da yu here
[2016-05-19T08:30:51+1000] would someone please be will to have a chat about my block please?
[2016-05-19T08:32:00+1000] <+Huon> hello chris_wot
[2016-05-19T08:33:12+1000] hey
[2016-05-19T08:33:46+1000] I'd like to get a clear understanding of the reason for the indefinite block
[2016-05-19T08:33:53+1000] <+Huon> what's the blocked account?
[2016-05-19T08:33:55+1000] the username is User:Letsbefiends
[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
[2016-05-19T08:34:27+1000] Huon - indeed, but as I say, I'm better known as Ta bu shi da yu
[2016-05-19T08:34:41+1000] However, the account is definitely Letsbefiends
[2016-05-19T08:35:00+1000] Because I no longer use Ta bu shi da yu
[2016-05-19T08:35:14+1000] Nor do I use Tbsdy lives
[2016-05-19T08:35:45+1000] I hope that's not a problem
[2016-05-19T08:36:06+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, looking, one moment...
[2016-05-19T08:36:17+1000] thanks
[2016-05-19T08:37:58+1000] just so you know, I'm still feeling a little fragile, so if you could be gentle with me, I'd really appreciate it
[2016-05-19T08:38:21+1000] also: I'm not actually asking for a lift of the block
[2016-05-19T08:38:28+1000] I just want to understand the reasoning
[2016-05-19T08:40:42+1000] <+Huon> you also edited as IP, didn't you?
[2016-05-19T08:43:27+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, hello?
[2016-05-19T08:43:58+1000] Huon - only after I rage quit and scambled my password
[2016-05-19T08:44:32+1000] You will also see I edited under a different IP address, but that's only because I switched to using my mobile phone
[2016-05-19T08:45:01+1000] if you check my contributions you'll see that there is no overlap
[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
[2016-05-19T08:45:17+1000] it's also the reason I've not responded on my talk page
[2016-05-19T08:46:36+1000] Huon, I just want to clarify - I understand the edit warring, but can I have the BLP violation explained to me a bit more?
[2016-05-19T08:47:09+1000] like I say, I'm not requesting an unblock - it's irrelevant anyway as I scrambled the password
[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?
[2016-05-19T08:48:27+1000] what the BLP violations were
[2016-05-19T08:48:46+1000] also: you have blocked a mobile IP address -
[2016-05-19T08:49:01+1000] that's probably causing a lot of Telstra subscribers problems with editing
[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"
[2016-05-19T08:50:19+1000] OK, so that's where I'd like some clarification - I'm not sure what primary sources are being referred to here
[2016-05-19T08:52:15+1000] I did some research and I posted a number of Developer Applications I located to the talk page
[2016-05-19T08:52:20+1000] is that the issue?
[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
[2016-05-19T08:53:07+1000] a reddit post is not a primary source
[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
[2016-05-19T08:53:43+1000] understood, but why not just remove it?
[2016-05-19T08:53:50+1000] <+Huon> well, that was done
[2016-05-19T08:53:55+1000] <+Huon> then you re-added it
[2016-05-19T08:54:36+1000] except that's a bit unfair really. The entire section was removed. Not just the source.
[2016-05-19T08:54:58+1000] <+Huon> well, I haven't checked all the sources yet
[2016-05-19T08:55:09+1000] that's OK, I'm not trying to trap you
[2016-05-19T08:55:18+1000] I'm trying to gain an insight into this whole mess
[2016-05-19T08:55:27+1000] <+Huon> but when BLP concerns are raised, re-adding the same content repeatedly is not a good idea
[2016-05-19T08:55:43+1000] no issue there, but I still do not understand what the BLP issues are
[2016-05-19T08:56:28+1000] FWIW, the reddit article just linked to an image with the advert
[2016-05-19T08:56:42+1000] <+Huon> so  effectively it still was a primary source
[2016-05-19T08:56:44+1000] the advert is what is being directly referred to in the article
[2016-05-19T08:56:49+1000] Huon that is true
[2016-05-19T08:56:57+1000] what is the issue though with linking to the primary source?
[2016-05-19T09:00:36+1000] Huon?
[2016-05-19T09:01:41+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, sorry I'm slow, looking through the content and the discussions
[2016-05-19T09:01:51+1000] that's OK :-)
[2016-05-19T09:02:05+1000] slow and thoroughness is good :-)
[2016-05-19T09:02:46+1000] thank you for being willing to respond to me, incidentally
[2016-05-19T09:05:36+1000] I should note I'd normally try to hash this out on the wiki user talk page (well, actually, this hasn't really happened to me before, but I digress) but that is not possible any more
[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
[2016-05-19T09:08:21+1000] Huon, I understand, but we are now jumping around a bit here
[2016-05-19T09:08:32+1000] I would like to understand the reason for the block
[2016-05-19T09:08:50+1000] <+Huon> well, violating WP:UNDUE can still be a BLP issue
[2016-05-19T09:09:39+1000] Huon OK, could you explain to me then why you feel that WP:UNDUE is a problem?
[2016-05-19T09:10:03+1000] I guess I'm trying to understand what bit is the issue
[2016-05-19T09:10:20+1000] it appears to be one section that has a problem
[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
[2016-05-19T09:12:12+1000] I understand, but is that objection because the other material isn't being covered?
[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
[2016-05-19T09:13:23+1000] OK, the issue I have with this though was that I was actively editing the article and had not had a chance to document this
[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
[2016-05-19T09:13:48+1000] I see, but I was about to add that material
[2016-05-19T09:14:13+1000] <+Huon> well, there's no way others can see what you were about to do
[2016-05-19T09:14:29+1000] Huon, actually... there was. I was advising them on the talk page
[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
[2016-05-19T09:15:31+1000] that would be in the bit that has been removed from the talk page
[2016-05-19T09:15:51+1000] by the admin who blocked me
[2016-05-19T09:16:39+1000] I also advised WWGB that is what I was doing
[2016-05-19T09:17:08+1000] And the other editor who was actively disputing and part of the reverting was also aware
[2016-05-19T09:17:19+1000] <+Huon> oh, now those really are primary sources
[2016-05-19T09:17:37+1000] Huon, understood - but they aren't used in the article
[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
[2016-05-19T09:18:16+1000] it was part of research into the article
[2016-05-19T09:18:29+1000] <+Huon> why list sources that are unusable?
[2016-05-19T09:19:18+1000] they weren't unusuable :-) they detailed the buildings he has been involved in, each of them has a lot of secondary material
[2016-05-19T09:19:22+1000] I was cross checking it all
[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
[2016-05-19T09:20:02+1000] Huon OK, understood, but can I ask then why it wasn't just removed and I wasn't advised of the exact material that was a problem before I was blocked?
[2016-05-19T09:20:12+1000] that material was never removed until way after the block
[2016-05-19T09:21:36+1000] Huon - understood about the long list of DAs, it was, as I say, research I was doing - if that was an issue I would have been happy to have removed it
[2016-05-19T09:21:53+1000] after all, I can make a list offsite - it's only background information
[2016-05-19T09:22:07+1000] I was merely attempting to be transparent in what I was researching
[2016-05-19T09:22:08+1000] <+Huon> the IP was blocked on May 17, 10:15 (UTC), right?
[2016-05-19T09:22:15+1000] not entirely sure
[2016-05-19T09:22:31+1000] <+Huon> and your account at 10:18
[2016-05-19T09:22:47+1000] ummm... sure, OK
[2016-05-19T09:22:49+1000] <+Huon> the sandbox was deleted at 10:18, too
[2016-05-19T09:22:52+1000] OK
[2016-05-19T09:23:11+1000] not sure I'm following...
[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)
[2016-05-19T09:23:59+1000] not that I recall
[2016-05-19T09:24:16+1000] if you could show me the message, that would be appreciated
[2016-05-19T09:24:38+1000] <+Huon> that doesn't look particularly "way after the block" to me; seems quite concurrent
[2016-05-19T09:25:23+1000] OK, so I'm not entirely sure I'm following here... the material was removed at 10:15
[2016-05-19T09:25:31+1000] and then I was blocked at 10:18
[2016-05-19T09:25:45+1000] <+Huon> yes, Nick-D placed the note on your talk page explaining the block at 10:26, too
[2016-05-19T09:25:51+1000] so I was meant to have done something in that 3 minutes?
[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
[2016-05-19T09:27:10+1000] right. So I'm trying to understand - why not just remove the material?
[2016-05-19T09:27:14+1000] why the block?
[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] understood about that - edit warring deserves a block, I was wrong to do that
[2016-05-19T09:27:53+1000] <+Huon> with BLP explicitly mentioned, unless I'm interpreting things wrong
[2016-05-19T09:28:14+1000] OK, so the issue is not with the talk page, but with the article?
[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 ( joined the channel
[2016-05-19T09:28:28+1000] at least the indefinite block
[2016-05-19T09:28:41+1000] no, that's OK - but why an indefinite block?
[2016-05-19T09:29:09+1000] kyan ( left the channel ("Leaving")
[2016-05-19T09:29:20+1000] and I want to emphasise that I'm not asking to have it lifted
[2016-05-19T09:29:24+1000] just an understanding
[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
[2016-05-19T09:30:36+1000] I see, so if I was to have acknowledged the behaviour was inappropriate then I could have had it lifted after a time?
[2016-05-19T09:31:01+1000] <+Huon> yes
[2016-05-19T09:31:29+1000] aside from coming here, what is the way in which I should have appealed the block?
[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
[2016-05-19T09:32:32+1000] that's right
[2016-05-19T09:32:46+1000] in fact, I was editing from a static IP
[2016-05-19T09:32:54+1000] which was also blocked, and I understand the reason
[2016-05-19T09:33:06+1000] could I have asked on the IP's talk page?
[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
[2016-05-19T09:33:39+1000] I see - Huon, I did actually post a message on the IP address talk page
[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
[2016-05-19T09:34:11+1000] at the time I was on a mobile IP
[2016-05-19T09:34:53+1000] <+Huon> ?
[2016-05-19T09:35:16+1000] that's right - I was very upset at the time
[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
[2016-05-19T09:37:08+1000] I disagree
[2016-05-19T09:37:31+1000] OK, wouldn't it have been better though to say this?
[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
[2016-05-19T09:38:54+1000] it was a protest really - for being blocked indefinitely
[2016-05-19T09:39:33+1000] even though I had lost control of the account, I was still unclear (and I am still unclear) what the indefinite block is for
[2016-05-19T09:40:00+1000] <+Huon> for the combination of edit-warring and BLP violations, I'd say
[2016-05-19T09:40:25+1000] OK, like I say, I understand the edit warring, but I'm still unclear as to the BLP violations bit
[2016-05-19T09:40:51+1000] I asked multiple times on the talk page to understand where the BLP violations were precisely
[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
[2016-05-19T09:41:26+1000] that's an unfair characterization
[2016-05-19T09:42:10+1000] I think perhaps the bit that is at issue is the bit about the traffic violations
[2016-05-19T09:43:26+1000] <+Huon> well, the collection in the sandbox seems to focus on claimed conflicts of interest, doesn't it?
[2016-05-19T09:43:57+1000] whatever was in the sandbox is in the talk page
[2016-05-19T09:44:35+1000] I just compiled my list on the sandbox, then copied that into the talk page
[2016-05-19T09:44:49+1000] <+Huon> yes
[2016-05-19T09:44:52+1000] to prevent too many edits on the talk page, which could have disrupted discussion
[2016-05-19T09:45:22+1000] it's just the DAs, and a list of articles from reliable sources
[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?
[2016-05-19T09:46:10+1000] no, the DAs are all recorded in the council sessions
[2016-05-19T09:46:24+1000] in the business meeting reports
[2016-05-19T09:46:47+1000] there were a number of significant times where I noted the meeting minutes however
[2016-05-19T09:46:49+1000] <+Huon> sorry, not familiar with the terminology - what's a DA?
[2016-05-19T09:46:57+1000] oh, sorry - Development Approval
[2016-05-19T09:47:16+1000] the thing that they submit to local councils in NSW, Australia to get approval for building
[2016-05-19T09:47:25+1000] sorry... Development Application, not Development Approval
[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?
[2016-05-19T09:48:19+1000] no, all the DAs I added were ones submitted by Mehajer
[2016-05-19T09:48:23+1000] or his family
[2016-05-19T09:48:41+1000] I was just researching the properties he owns
[2016-05-19T09:49:01+1000] and also chasing down the companies to verify them
[2016-05-19T09:49:05+1000] 1 - [[User talk:LordOfWank]] NEW Blocked by admin [[User:Widr]] at 2016-05-18; 04:46:14 for infinity: {{uw-uhblock}} (ID 6694546) - Username change request. Suggested new username: [[user:LordOfWk|reason=I am very sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. I have chosen a new username that is more presentable in edits. I hope to not cause any other disruptions.]].
[2016-05-19T09:49:05+1000] Autoreport: there are 9 users in [[Category:Requests for unblock]] (1 new).
[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
[2016-05-19T09:49:51+1000] for that section, the purpose was to understand the properties
[2016-05-19T09:50:02+1000] is that an issue?
[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)?
[2016-05-19T09:50:50+1000] I couldn't locate any other proprerties
[2016-05-19T09:51:01+1000] Auburn City Council, which no longer exists
[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
[2016-05-19T09:52:37+1000] I did - there are a lot of councils though
[2016-05-19T09:52:37+1000] 1 - [[User talk:A10 REC]] NEW Blocked by admin [[User:Drmies]] at 2016-05-18; 16:52:57 for infinity: {{uw-spamublock}} (ID 6695313)
[2016-05-19T09:52:38+1000] Autoreport: there are 10 users in [[Category:Requests for unblock]] (1 new).
[2016-05-19T09:53:12+1000] Huon I'm rather afraid that the reason Mr Mehajer is so notorious is because of these properties
[2016-05-19T09:53:56+1000] so as surprising as it is to you... that's the issue and why he is being investigated, why he was suspended from the Council, why the council was all sacked and then the state government merged the council
[2016-05-19T09:54:32+1000] FWIW, I can understand how it looks to someone from outside NSW, Australia
[2016-05-19T09:55:06+1000] it looks very much like I'm attacking him, however that's why he's so notorious, outside of his wedding
[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
[2016-05-19T09:56:40+1000] I understand - but I would like to understand where I was advised of the issue with the research notes
[2016-05-19T09:57:18+1000] because I don't recall anyone ever objected before I was blocked
[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
[2016-05-19T09:57:47+1000] which page? the talk page?
[2016-05-19T09:57:58+1000] or the article?
[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
[2016-05-19T09:58:46+1000] OK, so can I ask more about the article then? because it appears the talk page really wasn't the reason I was blocked
[2016-05-19T09:59:09+1000] Huon yes, it was - and not in dispute that the tone was too negative
[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
[2016-05-19T10:00:10+1000] OK, if the content on the talk page is part of the reason for the block, then I think it's very unfair nobody said that what I had added was inappropriate
[2016-05-19T10:00:32+1000] if so, as I've said, I could have removed it (or they could have removed it)
[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
[2016-05-19T10:02:02+1000] well, then that's the article page - and I would like to understand the issues with the article content
[2016-05-19T10:02:18+1000] <+Huon> as I mentioned, WP:UNDUE
[2016-05-19T10:03:08+1000] alright, so I'm still unclear as to what bit was causing undue weight?
[2016-05-19T10:03:31+1000] I got told it was undue weight, but I was told that it was because the number of kilobytes increased dramatically
[2016-05-19T10:03:40+1000] is that seriously the issue?
[2016-05-19T10:04:22+1000] and in fact, is that really a BLP violation?
[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
[2016-05-19T10:04:48+1000] Huon - well, then you'd be wrong
[2016-05-19T10:05:13+1000] he has a number of claims to notability, but being a mayor is a major one
[2016-05-19T10:05:42+1000] sorry, deputy mayor
[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
[2016-05-19T10:07:14+1000] Are you quoting from something?
[2016-05-19T10:07:23+1000] <+Huon> no, I was making up a quote
[2016-05-19T10:07:41+1000] I'm not sure I'm following what you are asking then
[2016-05-19T10:08:11+1000] oh...
[2016-05-19T10:08:14+1000] hold on, I see
[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
[2016-05-19T10:08:46+1000] as I've said, that's really only because I wasn't finished editing the article
[2016-05-19T10:09:13+1000] but, in fact, that is indeed what he is widely known as in NSW
[2016-05-19T10:09:49+1000] <+Huon> well, I don't see any sources indicating that's his primary claim to notability
[2016-05-19T10:09:51+1000] known for
[2016-05-19T10:10:17+1000] um. Are you reading the same article on Wikipedia as myself?
[2016-05-19T10:10:24+1000] which revision are you looking at?
[2016-05-19T10:11:11+1000] 1 - [[User talk:]] NEW Blocked by admin [[User:Widr]] at 2016-05-18; 11:41:36 until 2016-08-18; 11:41:36: {{anonblock}} (ID 6694956)
[2016-05-19T10:11:11+1000] Autoreport: there are 11 users in [[Category:Requests for unblock]] (1 new).
[2016-05-19T10:11:46+1000] also, I'm trying to understand how you get that impression, given that he has also got the intimidation charges, wedding and nine news articles documented
[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
[2016-05-19T10:13:43+1000] so the issue is that the automobile incidents section was too long?
[2016-05-19T10:14:34+1000] that section documents three very serious incidents, and summarizes in a paragraph the numerous other offenses he has commited
[2016-05-19T10:14:56+1000] I guess I'm trying to understand what should have been left out
[2016-05-19T10:15:01+1000] and why
[2016-05-19T10:15:55+1000] for reference, btw, I'm referring to this revision
[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
[2016-05-19T10:16:26+1000] they were all major events
[2016-05-19T10:16:28+1000] <+Huon> Someone claimed something about him, it didn't hold up - what does that tell us about him?
[2016-05-19T10:16:59+1000] I'm afraid I need to ask what parts you are referring to
[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 don’t 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?
[2016-05-19T10:18:49+1000] well, did you read the next bit?
[2016-05-19T10:19:01+1000] <+Huon> yes, yet more of a quote
[2016-05-19T10:19:06+1000] which is?
[2016-05-19T10:19:29+1000] <+Huon> However, The Australian noted that during his wedding he stated, in front of reporters and TV cameras: "What’s 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?
[2016-05-19T10:20:36+1000] sure, but like I say, I had a long way to go before I was done with that article - I was still writing it!
[2016-05-19T10:21:05+1000] <+Huon> well, what the "political career" section already does is note various investigations about him
[2016-05-19T10:21:39+1000] It should probably read "early political career"
[2016-05-19T10:21:55+1000] <+Huon> so it seems the negative content finds its way into the article quickly
[2016-05-19T10:22:36+1000] it seems that way, sure - but is that because of the subject, or because of me pushing a POV?
[2016-05-19T10:22:56+1000] if it's me pushing a POV, then I'm still not sure I'm following
[2016-05-19T10:23:19+1000] if the issue is that it should documented more of his political career, I don't disagree
[2016-05-19T10:23:29+1000] but then again, that's what I was going to be doing
[2016-05-19T10:23:53+1000] given I wasn't finished writing the article...
[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
[2016-05-19T10:24:38+1000] oh, my opinion of Mehajer isn't very high, sure. But that's not the issue I think
[2016-05-19T10:24:49+1000] the issue is with article content
[2016-05-19T10:25:06+1000] so, could you help me out here still, as I did ask something above
[2016-05-19T10:25:33+1000] <+Huon> sorry, what exactly is the question?
[2016-05-19T10:25:49+1000] the section that kept being removed, and that is related to the edit war, was the "Automobile incidents" section
[2016-05-19T10:26:01+1000] I asked what part should have been removed, and why
[2016-05-19T10:26:32+1000] <+Huon> well, personally I'd say two or three lines would have sufficed to sum it up
[2016-05-19T10:26:33+1000] given that's largely what I was blocked for, I'd really appreciate at answer to this
[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
[2016-05-19T10:27:30+1000] I'm afraid I disagree then
[2016-05-19T10:28:05+1000] however, I note that I asked this same question on the talk page
[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
[2016-05-19T10:28:54+1000] so I'm trying to understand then - the entire section was inappropriate?
[2016-05-19T10:29:09+1000] not even a summary should have been given?
[2016-05-19T10:29:22+1000] even your summary few sentences should have been removed?
[2016-05-19T10:29:53+1000] Huon I dont' disagree, the article eventually did lead me to contemplate suicide
[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
[2016-05-19T10:30:22+1000] so yes, I should have walked away a lot sooner, however - that's not the issue here
[2016-05-19T10:30:41+1000] OK, so what is the best way to work out such a summary?
[2016-05-19T10:31:06+1000] Huon - that wouldn't have been appropriate at all
[2016-05-19T10:31:22+1000] these are major issues covered extensively in the media across Australia
[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
[2016-05-19T10:32:10+1000] I understand, and I'm not asking for you to be a subject matter expert :-)
[2016-05-19T10:32:41+1000] however, because I was blocked for BLP violations, I very much want to know what the violations are
[2016-05-19T10:32:54+1000] it seems to boil down to [[WP:UNDUE]]
[2016-05-19T10:33:11+1000] however, it is not at all clear to me what is given undue to prominence
[2016-05-19T10:33:29+1000] the section that was removed was the automobile incidents section
[2016-05-19T10:33:54+1000] however, the incident relating to the women he nearly killed was highly significant and publicized widely
[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
[2016-05-19T10:34:01+1000] did they?
[2016-05-19T10:34:38+1000] again, I'm rather afraid it's not evident to me what detail is the issue
[2016-05-19T10:34:47+1000] and I asked for clarification
[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
[2016-05-19T10:35:13+1000] not at all
[2016-05-19T10:35:24+1000] that's what he asserts, sure
[2016-05-19T10:35:40+1000] <+Huon> they even propose a way towards a compromise
[2016-05-19T10:35:47+1000] which is?
[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."
[2016-05-19T10:39:27+1000] and yet, that's what is already in the article
[2016-05-19T10:39:45+1000] or was, before it was wholesale removed
[2016-05-19T10:40:42+1000] what bits were in that section in that were not already such?
[2016-05-19T10:40:48+1000] <+Huon> well, there was far more than that
[2016-05-19T10:41:25+1000] could you explain further?
[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".
[2016-05-19T10:41:46+1000] what's the issue with that?
[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
[2016-05-19T10:42:06+1000] that's not trivia at all
[2016-05-19T10:42:37+1000] that's detailing what was claimed and what he was charged and convicted over
[2016-05-19T10:43:10+1000] and the "[make] bad choices and it ended in catastrophe" is the crux of the court case
[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
[2016-05-19T10:43:54+1000] except that it was important to note what he was charged with
[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
[2016-05-19T10:44:21+1000] OK, but that
[2016-05-19T10:44:28+1000] 's not actually a violation of BLP
[2016-05-19T10:44:43+1000] it's just an issue of needing to modify the article, right?
[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?
[2016-05-19T10:46:10+1000] not written yet
[2016-05-19T10:46:20+1000] and would have been
[2016-05-19T10:46:21+1000] <+Huon> where are the various election-related quotes that surely have been published in the news?
[2016-05-19T10:46:32+1000] not written yet
[2016-05-19T10:46:35+1000] and would have been
[2016-05-19T10:47:30+1000] so I think I need to get this straight - because there was not enough written about the rest of Mehajer's career, it made the rest of the article look unbalanced
[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 ( joined the channel
[2016-05-19T10:47:49+1000] kyan ( left the channel ("Leaving")
[2016-05-19T10:47:54+1000] Huon, fairly long
[2016-05-19T10:47:58+1000] kyan ( joined the channel
[2016-05-19T10:48:04+1000] kyan ( left the channel ("Leaving")
[2016-05-19T10:48:08+1000] <+Huon> well, that too may be a problem
[2016-05-19T10:48:18+1000] well Huon, that's fine
[2016-05-19T10:48:18+1000] <+Huon> he is, after all, ultimately small fry
[2016-05-19T10:48:29+1000] Huon - frankly, that's irrelevant
[2016-05-19T10:49:19+1000] and also, of course, wrong
[2016-05-19T10:49:36+1000] may I ask where in the world you live?
[2016-05-19T10:50:23+1000] <+Huon> not Australia
[2016-05-19T10:50:41+1000] right - so I'm curious - why do you assert he is "small fry"?
[2016-05-19T10:52:12+1000] also, what does that have to do with the size of the article?
[2016-05-19T10:52:41+1000] also, what does that have to do with me getting blocked?
[2016-05-19T10:53:19+1000] <+Huon> well, he's obviously rich enough to stage that lavish wedding
[2016-05-19T10:53:50+1000] perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by "small fry" then
[2016-05-19T10:54:40+1000] <+Huon> but he's a minor politician, and his notoriety seems to be entirely local
[2016-05-19T10:54:56+1000] and yet, that is where you would be entirely wrong
[2016-05-19T10:55:24+1000] and had I had a chance to complete the article, it would have shown his full significance
[2016-05-19T10:57:59+1000] so I have to go now, but it appears to me that the reason I was blocked was because one section seemed to be too long, but nobody can tell me or has attempted to summarise but just deleted it, the "BLP" issue is that it appears to give undue weight to his court case, but that was a judgement made based on an unfinished article I was actively in the middle of creating, the edit warring (which I accept being blocked for
[2016-05-19T10:57:59+1000]  a short time for) and the fact that I had added the list of DAs to the talk page
[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
[2016-05-19T10:59:02+1000] I'm sorry, but I just don't know what that larger issue is...
[2016-05-19T10:59:13+1000] could you restate what it is?
[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
[2016-05-19T10:59:36+1000] well, that's incorrect
[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?
[2016-05-19T11:00:15+1000] alright then. Can you please provide me the dubious, inapppropriate sources?
[2016-05-19T11:00:36+1000] so it was the DAs then
[2016-05-19T11:00:48+1000] OK, was there any other sources?
[2016-05-19T11:00:50+1000] <+Huon> that's another part, yes
[2016-05-19T11:01:20+1000] no, you've accused me of collecting information from dubious, inappropriate sources, I think it's best if you tell me what they are
[2016-05-19T11:01:29+1000] it appears the DAs were one of the issues
[2016-05-19T11:01:34+1000] what about the other sources?
[2016-05-19T11:03:44+1000] sorry, need to go to the loo... be right back
[2016-05-19T11:10:34+1000] 1 - [[User talk:Jgg1999]] NEW Jgg1999 is not blocked
[2016-05-19T11:10:35+1000] Autoreport: there are 12 users in [[Category:Requests for unblock]] (1 new).
[2016-05-19T11:22:09+1000] [[user:Yamla]] reviewed and declined to unblock [[user talk:Jgg1999]]:  Procedural decline. You are not blocked directly and did not provide your block message and/or IP, which we need to figure out what's going on.
[2016-05-19T11:25:35+1000] Handled: [[User talk:Jgg1999]]
[2016-05-19T11:25:35+1000] Autoreport: there are 11 users in [[Category:Requests for unblock]] (0 new).
[2016-05-19T11:27:34+1000] OK, I'm back :-) sorry about that
[2016-05-19T11:28:02+1000] so... when you are ready, could you advise me what sources you believe are from dubious and inappropriate sources?
[2016-05-19T11:28:24+1000] <+Huon> practically everything put on the talk page, I'd say
[2016-05-19T11:28:47+1000] Why do you say that?
[2016-05-19T11:29:27+1000] I would appreciate even one source that is not from Auburn Coucil
[2016-05-19T11:29:30+1000] Council
[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
[2016-05-19T11:30:14+1000] that's OK, I would have removed them if I was asked, as I've said
[2016-05-19T11:30:36+1000] however, as I just asked, aside from those sources, what was inappropriate?
[2016-05-19T11:32:11+1000] I really would like an answer to this question, you have been very quick to make that assertion so it should not be hard for you to provide me with a source reasonably quickly
[2016-05-19T11:32:51+1000] <+Huon> you dumped some 40k of content on the talk page
[2016-05-19T11:33:04+1000] and you have stated that there is inappropriate sources
[2016-05-19T11:33:16+1000] which indicates you saw a source you felt was inappropriate
[2016-05-19T11:33:26+1000] thus, you should be able to provide it to me
[2016-05-19T11:33:52+1000] you are the one making this accusation, after all. I am the one asking you to prove it. 
[2016-05-19T11:34:12+1000] however, I am happy to give you time
[2016-05-19T11:34:31+1000] <+Huon> the "developments", "home" and "council car park" sections have no place on Wikipedia, article or talk page
[2016-05-19T11:34:46+1000] why is that?
[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
[2016-05-19T11:36:32+1000] OK, and all of these are from Auburn Council, and as I said had I been informed of this fact I would have happily removed them
[2016-05-19T11:37:31+1000] if someone adds material that they didn't realise would be an issue, isn't it normal practice to inform them of the material that is inappropriate and either get them to remove it, or remove it?
[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?
[2016-05-19T11:39:07+1000] Sure, they informed me of what they said were BLP concerns, but I asked them to clarify what the BLP concerns were and they told me that primary sources aren't allowed at all, which is not true, and they said the article was a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]], which I asked them to clarify
[2016-05-19T11:39:27+1000] nobody told me that I could add some research links to the talk page
[2016-05-19T11:39:34+1000] couldn't
[2016-05-19T11:39:44+1000] frankly, I honestly didn't think it would be a concern
[2016-05-19T11:40:01+1000] evidently it is, but I only really just found this out right now
[2016-05-19T11:40:19+1000] so, I guess I'm asking once again - wouldn't it have been good had I been informed?
[2016-05-19T11:40:27+1000] and once again, is this why I was blocked?
[2016-05-19T11:40:40+1000] <+Huon> you were informed in the note accompanying the block
[2016-05-19T11:40:57+1000] so I was advised of my mistake, and then blocked
[2016-05-19T11:41:11+1000] sorry, scratch that - I was blocked, then advised of my mistake
[2016-05-19T11:41:21+1000] <+Huon> yes, to prevent further BLP issues
[2016-05-19T11:41:44+1000] but... if it was just an error, why would there have been further BLP issues?
[2016-05-19T11:42:46+1000] it's a massive assumption that I was digging for information to attack Salim Mehajer
[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
[2016-05-19T11:43:09+1000] you are indeed doing me a massive injustice
[2016-05-19T11:43:14+1000] <+Huon> well, we have the selection of sources you found
[2016-05-19T11:43:41+1000] you certainly do - all the ones that show what property he and his companies owned or have developed
[2016-05-19T11:44:08+1000] I'm trying to understand though, why is this a concern?
[2016-05-19T11:44:14+1000] you still haven't explained why
[2016-05-19T11:44:35+1000] <+Huon> the selection is rather one-sided
[2016-05-19T11:44:36+1000] you asked me if I was trying to find his other DAs, and I have explained I have, but I can't find anything
[2016-05-19T11:44:42+1000] how so?
[2016-05-19T11:44:48+1000] what should have been included?
[2016-05-19T11:44:53+1000] <+Huon> I did a quick Google News search on Mehajer some time in between
[2016-05-19T11:45:04+1000] oh yes
[2016-05-19T11:45:09+1000] what did you discover?
[2016-05-19T11:45:11+1000] <+Huon> what would have been difficult to put a negative spin on seems to be missing
[2016-05-19T11:45:23+1000] which is?
[2016-05-19T11:46:50+1000] <+Huon> well, the most relevant from the first page of Google News hits, beyond celebrity gossip, is this:
[2016-05-19T11:47:17+1000] funny, I seem to recall documenting that exact link in that section
[2016-05-19T11:48:05+1000] yup, here it is:
[2016-05-19T11:48:06+1000] Robertson, James (6 May 2016). "Salim Mehajer secures $65m in loans to build apartment complex". The Sydney Morning Herald.
[2016-05-19T11:48:24+1000] different source, but same article
[2016-05-19T11:48:35+1000] so... you were saying?
[2016-05-19T11:48:45+1000] any other info I'm missing?
[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
[2016-05-19T11:49:54+1000] which means that you missed the fact that I divided that into really a few major sections
[2016-05-19T11:50:24+1000] but I'm not sure how, given that the first section is entitled "Developments", and the second section is "In The News"
[2016-05-19T11:51:07+1000] and the Developments section was just to identify his property portfolio, and I never really expected to document news sources in it, although there was a few I added
[2016-05-19T11:51:54+1000] so. Could you please tell me what other sources were dubious or inappropriate?
[2016-05-19T11:56:57+1000] Actually, I think I see one that was irrelevant:
[2016-05-19T11:57:03+1000] that's it though
[2016-05-19T11:57:16+1000] not sure why that link is in there...
[2016-05-19T11:58:53+1000] hello?
[2016-05-19T11:59:07+1000] Huon?
[2016-05-19T11:59:40+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, sorry, was reading sources...
[2016-05-19T11:59:49+1000] you know, this sort of annoys me Huon
[2016-05-19T12:00:06+1000] you have made an accusation about me, but you have done so before checking your facts
[2016-05-19T12:00:52+1000] the reason I know that is the case, is with the exception of that mistaken link and the Council links, all the sources were from reliable and verifable news 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
[2016-05-19T12:01:17+1000] I understand
[2016-05-19T12:01:26+1000] <+Huon> chris_wot, in this particular instance I indeed screwed up; I'm sorry for that
[2016-05-19T12:01:40+1000] it's OK :-) like I say, it wasn't my intent to trap you
[2016-05-19T12:01:52+1000] my sole purpose here is to understand my block
[2016-05-19T12:02:13+1000] you are an uninvolved admin, so I know you won't know the ins and outs of this case
[2016-05-19T12:02:47+1000] however, my deep concern here is that the issues that are being raised are really about the council links on the talk page. 
[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
[2016-05-19T12:03:11+1000] it's OK
[2016-05-19T12:03:23+1000] is there another admin I can speak to though?
[2016-05-19T12:03:33+1000] or another avenue I can email?
[2016-05-19T12:03:41+1000] <+Huon> there is UTRS, of course
[2016-05-19T12:03:51+1000] I think I am going to ask them to clarify what the issues are
[2016-05-19T12:03:57+1000] thank you for taking the time to speak with me
[2016-05-19T12:03:58+1000] <+Huon>
[2016-05-19T12:04:02+1000] I appreciate it :-)
[2016-05-19T12:20:15+1000] Huon (~shogunat@wikipedia/Huon) left IRC (Quit: Bye!)

No comments:

Post a Comment