User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2022/June

Left wing attack

It has been sourced on multiple articles, by the shooters manifesto. That is called a "source". Not sure what the conflict could be? He's indexed under "right-wing" attacks. That is clearly erroneous.

As for Robinson Cano, I have no clue what that even means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.202.157 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been sourced on multiple articles, by the shooters manifesto. That is called a "source". - No; that's called a "primary source" which makes it "original research". I've already replied to your other comments on your own talk page, so keep any ensuing discussion focused there. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi Butlerblog, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks for mentioning this to me. After reading through the tutorial, it definitely sounds like something I would be interested in, so I went ahead and added my application. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Edits to Taleeb Noormohamed

Hi there; I’m not anyone special but I am concerned that someone names NiceTryEarl continues to make rampant changes to my MP’s page which are pretty awful and irrelevant. For example mr noormohamed did clarify that he only had 3 primary residence properties in over a decade and that he would not flip real estate once an MP. But every time these edits are made (or so I seem to see) this individual deletes them to disparage him. Could you help correct this? I don’t know how to do this and while it is fair to critique mr noormohamed, nothing he did was illegal and to continue to withhold truthful information to make him look bad seems off side with Wikipedia rules. Canadascholar23 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Canadascholar23: Are the edits that they are removing cited with a reliable source? If so, and they are not WP:UNDUE weight, then they should not be removing them. Can you give a specific example of an edit where they have done this? ButlerBlog (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes - for example, the individual made the following claim: Noormohamed initially dodged questions on income he earned from flipping houses when asked if he had declared those as his principal residence, which would make gains on their sale non-taxable. He later stated, "I have always followed the appropriate rules around this."[30] In an interview with a local TV station, Noormohamed declined to provide details on how much he had profited from a decade of home sales and would not commit to ending the practice if and when he was elected to office.[31] Canadascholar23 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Several edits were made to remove this because they were proven to be inaccurate. In an interview with City News 1130 noormohamed indicated that he would not continue flipping real estate and also said that he only used his personal residence exemption three times which MacMahon verified. The audio of the interview is here, as is MacMahon’s report. Canadascholar23 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Just did a brief interview with Vancouver Granville Liberal candidate Taleeb Noormohamed. I asked him if he still intends to buy and sell real estate if he is elected MP and he says he will not — will focus fully on his MP job. #cdnpoli #Elxn44 Canadascholar23 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It will not let me post the Twitter link but if you also search noormohamed MacMahon YouTube you can hear the entire interview. You can also see nicetryearl’s malicious edits in the history. Canadascholar23 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1090962718 Canadascholar23 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Canadascholar23: I've taken a look at things and so far, I don't see anything in the article as it currently stands that needs to be specifically addressed other than the previously removed content due to questions of sourcing. I'll look these other notes over and if they are suitable for inclusion, then I'll note that. However, I would strongly caution you to focus specifically on content and not on the editors. Making accusations of malicious edits is not assuming good faith. All that's going to do is result in edit warring because multiple parties are making it personal - and in those cases, nobody wins. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay.

Let's be very clear here. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I joined and registered because I want all the facts of Mr Noormohameds past to be made public in perpetuity with credible and well-sourced news items.

If I have erred in any respect, it has been in being too detailed. Hence the WP:Undue that @WildComet used. You should note the conversation on Noormohamed's talk page in which @WildComet noted that Noormohamed's campaign was extremely contentious, and felt the particular details (number of homes, number of homes flipped) should be permitted, but that many other details about the campaign could be detailed only if and when the other campaigns that Noormohamed has run in had been similarly detailed.

Here's WildComet's comment: "I tend to think the details of these "flipping" criticisms are relevant and appropriate to include. The numbers of homes and the fact that he refused to say whether he had claimed "principle residence" status to avoid taxes was a significant issue in that campaign. It is a lot of text about that one issue, but the correct way to deal with those WP:UNDUE concerns, is likely to add more content about his prior campaigns, this campaign and his time in office. A few sentences giving this important detail will not seem undue if the rest of the article is expanded appropriately."

That might be easy enough if the page was relatively free of editors using IP addressees, or registering, then editing his page, then disappearing. Those users tend to delete content, or grossly inflate Noormohamed's other 'accomplishments'.

For example, I have news items that appeared when Noomohamed announced his bid to become Vision Vancouver's (a municipal political party) candidate for mayor. He faced near-immediate criticisms and questions about his role as a 'tech executive' for a short term rental business, an industry that continues to be contentious in Vancouver. I looked forward to adding more details as per WildComet's suggestion when someone added that mayoral campaign detail to his profile.

Suddenly, wouldn't you know it - a mysterious editor identified only by a MAC address (April 15, 19:47) - completely deleted all details about that episode, claiming that 'He did not run in the mayoral election technically as the race had not been declared.' I am positive his mayoral gambit was deleted because Noormohamed will go to any length to eliminate evidence of his role at a short term rental company. It is notable that while he no longer includes that as an accomplishment, he seemed quite indifferent to it a few years back...

Then there's the 'except' thing...

Noormohamed's claim that he explained himself to a reporter (ie: the tweet Canadascholar23 wants to use) came *after* the election. So sometimes Noormohamed's and/or his agents want things excluded because 'technically' they didn't occur during a certain period (the mayor thing), but other times they want things included that transpired after a period (he told a reporter!). And on and on and on it goes.

There's a reason the page has been locked down before, but it's not because of my efforts to keep quality information on the page. It's because of Noormohamed and people like Canadascholar23

As User @WalterGörlitz notes on April 15: "To his paid editors: stop removing content from this article."

Here's Walters comment from January 9: "Filled in 6 bare reference(s) with reFill 2, site is 503, and his PR person or assistant who is editing should stop"

Walter has also removed any number of WP:Peacock type edits, but I think he's more or less given up, due to the volume of vandalism and concerted efforts by Noormohamed and his agents who now seem to be using other editors to do their work for them.

Next - I'm sorry, but I have to question your decision on what is or isn't "a reliable source" on the issues surrounding this campaign or the candidate.

Bob Mackin, the editor of the Breaker News, formerly worked for local newspaper The Georgia Straight, whose current editor called him (in 2020), "hardnosed Vancouver journalist Bob Mackin" here.

Mr. Mackin's publisher says: "Bob spent ten years as a sports columnist with the Vancouver Courier and reported for six years for 24 Hours Vancouver and the Sun Media chain. He is the author of three books on baseball trivia and one on soccer."

What possible grounds do you have for claiming The Breaker News "is not a reliable source (WP:QUESTIONABLE) and is not suitable for WP:BLP"? when the editor of a local newspaper (ie: considered reliable) and a local publisher identify the site's owner and editor as a journalist? The site is dedicated to political news in this province, whether municipal, provincial or federal.

It is news and pertinent to a political campaign when a party leader does not appear alongside their candidate when campaigning.

It is pertinent and newsworthy when a candidate absents themselves from public appearances during their campaign, as Noormohamed did when they missed an all-candidates debate and a forum SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL BROADCASTER. At least two media outlets mentioned how Noormohamed was avoiding public appearances. If you don't believe it might be relevant if say, Hillary Clinton didn't show up at a debate hosted by CNN or that her page highlighting her political campaigns need not mention that, I believe you're wrong.

I must strongly protest your actions here and ask that you reconsider your removal of this content and the suggestion that the sourced media outlet is "questionable". The Breaker News is used in at least one other Wikipedia page, that being John Furlong. That page has been around since 2012, and the link from 2017. Yet in the 5 years since it's inclusion, no editors have felt the need to delete the content or called the source "Questionable." Why are you doing so? What grounds do you have for making this claim?

It should be noted that the other editors - at least, those who are not acting on behalf of Noormohamed - did not see fit to remove this content on the grounds you did. These news pieces were published during Noormohamed's campaign for office in 2021, they were published at a news outlet and they were pertinent to his campaign and the criticism he faced during it.

Please reconsider your decision. If necessary, I will seek out other editors to support me, while also providing my evidence.

Lastly, check out CanadaScholar23's contributions. This is the person who convinced you someone else was acting in bad faith:

Every single edit they made before June 4 was on a single day (April 16, 2022). AND EVERY SINGLE EDIT WAS TO A MEMBER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA.

But before that, CanadaScholar23 started the day - their first ever edit - by making the following edit to the page of a candidate for the Progressive Party of Canada's leadership: "Despite having never had a private sector job his net worth has now reached over $9M, causing some to question the provenance of this wealth.". No reference or URL was provided.

This is THE VERY FIRST EDIT that Canadascholar23 ever made. Does that behavior seem to you like an Wikipedia editor acting in good faith or supplying reliable, pertinent, well-sourced content? Why would you consider this person's complaints worthy of acting upon?

The ONLY other edits this 'editor' has made was on June 4, when they made very minor grammatical edits to Punch Records and on June 5, when they added 'the years' to an article on Roman Forts. This minor, hilariously trivial edits almost seems like they were trying to flesh out their credentials...

I urge you to rethink the deletions you've made and to consider reading through some of the other editors comments on Noormohamed's Talk page.

This person - Canadascholar23 - is not a good faith editor and frankly, I think they should be banned from editing at all. NiceTryEarl (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@NiceTryEarl: There's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, I highly recommend that you step back and spend some time learning the culture and principles around editing here. Start with WP:5P and drill down. Second, if you're going to edit a BLP (Biographies of Living Persons), then you need to make sure you are VERY familiar with the standards for BLP articles. Make sure you have read and understand WP:BLP.

check out CanadaScholar23's contributions. This is the person who convinced you someone else was acting in bad faith: - Let me very clear: No one has convinced me of anything. I'm not considering one person over another. I am looking at things solely on the basis of editor behavior and actual edits weighed against the core principles of Wikipedia. Since I have not yet actually responded to the other editor, you have no idea what I'm thinking about in terms of their edits. You're jumping to conclusions (and making yourself look bad in doing so). Just because you see someone else violating any given principle or standard does not make it OK for you to do likewise. Don't accuse other editors of not acting in good faith. That's the same as accusing them of bad faith, which is itself an act of bad faith (WP:AOBF). There's a right way and a wrong way to handle this.

On that note, I'd recommend taking a very serious look at your user page. You're making accusations that are entirely inappropriate. Should you ever get dragged into AN/I, that's not going to look good for you. To experienced editors, what you've written there calls your POV into question and essentially declares you have a vendetta to settle. When you get involved in disputes, there's a principle here known as WP:BOOMERANG. In essence, no one has immunity here.

Next - I'm sorry, but I have to question your decision on what is or isn't "a reliable source" on the issues surrounding this campaign or the candidate. - It's not my "decision" - it's based specifically on how we view sources here and what does or does not qualify as a reliable source (see WP:RS). The source is self-published. Therefore, it does not meet the standards we have set here for a reliable source; specifically, as self-published, it lacks editorial oversight. It doesn't matter who the writer is, nor what their credentials are - it's their personal site which, for purposes of an encyclopedia, does not meet the standard, and most certainly does not meet standards for a BLP, which require an even higher standard that general articles. I would recommend reviewing and understanding the entire section of "Reliable sources" in the BLP guidelines: WP:BLPSOURCES. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Could I ask you to please go back the the Noormohamed page and see what's transpired since you made your edits. The comment about "where is the source for these numbers?" made by @WildComet in the history is clear when you look at the removal of citations following the sentence "He faced criticism..." in the 2021 campaign by @Canadascholar23 - right after your last edit. 16:39

That user removed citations to support the content.

This has happened before and of course, it results in the removal of content (no sources!) as is - I'm fairly certain - the intent.

I dont tend to think Noomohameds statements on the cause of his exit from his mayoral campaign should be given much weight beyond what I stated... a "sudden cardiac event". It was pointed out in a different news report that Noormohamed did not allow questions by the press (Should I include that source?). There's no evidence that he required hospitalization. There's literally no evidence at all for any of Noromohamed's claims. None. So all that needs to be said is why he dropped out. I said - as did the news report, it was a "sudden cardiac event". Period.

It is not important or relevant who he 'threw his support' behind or offer his thoughts on who the party should represent or the policies he was looking at crafting, etc, etc, etc. It was a campaign that was aborted for what are pretty obvious reasons to any semi-skilled, non tone-deaf political person and whatever fluffery or promises made by the candidate are irrelevant. I have no idea why WildComet added them.

Your view may differ. But I'd appreciate you taking a look at the shenanigans before I have another go at the page this weekend.

Thanks.

PS: I'd really like to delete much of the commentary I've made above, but I won't, even though it's embarrassing. NiceTryEarl (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@NiceTryEarl: Discussions specifically about article content belong on the article talk page.

That user removed citations to support the content. - I put those back. I would have put them back again after the second reversion, but you need to understand when and when not to make those types of edits. We take a dim view of edit warring (WP:3RR). On a WP:BLP you have to be discerning. If it's egregiously wrong, uncited, or potentially libelous, then 3RR issues don't necessarily apply. But in this case, there was no need to be aggressive.

There's no evidence that he required hospitalization - I suggest you review the source you used because it specifically says that.

I have no idea why WildComet added them. - I added them. And yes, my view differs. I think you need to review WP:NPOV. It's hard, because we all have personal biases, but it's important to set those aside when editing - especially a BLP article. It takes time.

PS: I'd really like to delete much of the commentary I've made above, but I won't, even though it's embarrassing. - I did see that you took to heart some of my advice about your user page. That shows good intentions and progress, and that's important. Not to go off on a rabbit trail, but Wikipedia needs more editors. The only way we get good, long-term editors is by getting new, inexperienced editors to gain experience. It's always my intention to help guide rather than shout down new editors. It does take a good deal of time to learn the nuance of guidelines, policies, and culture here. One thing to remember is that when comes to community enforcement, "edits are forever". Even if you remove something, it's there in the history for review. The general guideline on talk pages is not to edit after you've said something. But this is my talk page, and so unlike me being on yours or being on the article talk, if you want to remove some of this, that's fine by me. Not specific to this case, but related and part of wikipedia culture is that you can use the "strike through" (like this). To the community, this generally means, "I said it, but I take it back" (WP:REDACTED). Related to this, my talk page gets automatically archived after discussions sit dormant after awhile so it's not going to stay here that long anyway.

As I noted, I do see that you took some of my advice, which goes a long way. One thing to be cautious of is to not be "a single purpose account" (WP:SPA). It's OK to have a niche interest, but it's also important to show that you're editing within guidelines. My view is that you're moving the right direction. Just be careful that you're not "POV-pushing" (WP:POVPUSH). I know that your concern is POVpushing from others, but it's important to handle that correctly by (1) not doing it yourself, and (2) not making it personal. That second one is pretty hard, but it's important - always remember that if things heat up and get dragged into a community discussion (such as WP:ANI), you want your track record to look good.

Obviously, I may not agree with all edits from either side here, and I may not have dedicated time to check this article multiple times a day, but I will get there for review at some point over the weekend. In the meantime, just some thoughts:

• Keep discussions related specifically to content and edits on the article's talk page
• Don't make it personal (It's important to develop a thick skin on the receiving end, too)
• If something requires direct discussion about a specific editor, take that to their talk page (or the appropriate "other" place)
• Remember above all else, the objective is to achieve WP:CONSENSUS, keeping in mind that WP:BLP policies still apply.
• Feel free to ping me in a talk page discussion that you feel needs additional input by using the {{ping|Username}} template
• If it's not egregiously bad, libelous, wrong, uncited, then there's not a huge rush to fix it - it will get fixed eventually
• The opposite is also true - if it IS any of those things, it MUST come out immediately - For BLP articles, it's better to remove questionable items from the article immediately and discuss them (not as important for non-BLPs).
• If you have questions, ask. I may not be "warm and fuzzy" but I think you can see my priority is Wikipedia project quality, which includes editor improvement (including my own).
• Lastly, this ended up a lot longer than intended. When discussing article content on the talk page, try to keep it succinct - unlike what we've done here. And don't repeat yourself. Too many talk page discussions end up miles-long were each party simply restates what they've already said. There's no need - you said it, that should be enough. Don't let other editors who haven't gained experience drag you down into bad practices. Just because they do something doesn't make it OK. Try to move discussion forward rather than beat a dead horse. WP:BLUDGEON is a good article to review. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

ib tv

If you don't feel like hitting 13k pages with bad {{infobox television}} parameters, feel free to wait until I run my bot, which will be in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I might still do some as I've been using the opportunity to cleanup/standardize some of the date templates ({{Start date}} and {{End date}}). ButlerBlog (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)