Talk:Andrew Wilkinson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protected edit request on 25 October 2020

The heading for '"Whacky Times" Controversy' has Whacky spelled differently than in that paragraph. Please change one of them to be consistent with the other. The quote in the paragraph also has too many opening quotation marks.

Also, is fully-protecting this article necessary? Is not WP:ECP sufficent? It just seems a bit overkill and prevents people from fixing typos such as this one. Mgasparin (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done the source uses the variant without "h" so I switched to that. You can address your other query to Bearcat the protecting admin — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also fixed the quotation marks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

ECP can't be used as the first step in an edit dispute; it requires that other attempts to control the edit warring have already failed. Basically, ECP only comes into play if the problem still persists after a few days of temporary full protection have expired. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Controversies"

On several occasions in recent weeks, a user named User:Penzerandrew (who thus has a possible but not confirmed WP:COI) has been removing the following text from this article:

“ After Wilkinson started his candidacy for Vancouver-Quilchena, news media raised questions about his links to Sun Wave and a Chinese businessman Ni Ritao, who made controversial dealings about a shuttered pulp mill in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. In addition to correspondence to Sun Wave from 2005 when Wilkinson was a deputy minister for economic development, there was also criticism of his later serving as lead counsel for Sun Wave's 2010 lawsuit versus the City of Prince Rupert when he was with the McCarthy Tétrault law firm. ”

The source for the text in question was this Globe and Mail article: Hoffman, Andy (Feb 19, 2013). "New B.C. Liberal candidate has ties to shuttered pulp mill". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

Personally, my own evaluation is that this sounds like a remarkably insignificant controversy, of probably no enduring notability or encyclopedic significance — if it turned into a big scandal, that might be something worth mentioning, but pretty much every candidate for any political party always undergoes some kind of public scrutiny over their past associations with other people or groups without that fact necessarily becoming encyclopedic in most cases. To me, the whole thing seems far more like a insinuation of guilt by association than like a properly substantiated thing about him that would belong in an encyclopedia article. But as I'm not an expert in BC provincial politics, I don't know if it might have greater significance than it seems to as written. And it's Wikipedia policy, not the subject's own personal image management preferences, that determine whether it should be in the article or not — so it's a consensus of established Wikipedia users, not an WP:SPA who's never made a single non-Wilkinson related edit to the site, that gets to decide on its includability or excludability. And aside from this, the editor also actively borked some reference templates which were being left in the article, which is inappropriate behaviour regardless of the includability or excludability of the "controversy" itself.

For the moment, the content remains out of the article and the page is under temporary edit protection, but I wanted to ask for some additional input on whether it's a thing we should be covering or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am inclinded to agree with Bearcat on this. Just as not every fart is notable, not every controversial person that someone has been associated with is relevant enough to me mentioned in their article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat. Mr. Wilkinson's involvement with Ni Ritao seem run of the mill for his positions (deputy minister, then a lawyer), so unless other sources (which I can't find at the moment) indicate greater involvement in the corruption scandal or that the work with Ni Ritao is something out of the ordinary, I don't see why this should stay. At best, if there's wider coverage of his role in the 2010 lawsuit that indicates the case was very important, that might warrant a one-line mention in this article and a wikilink to an appropriate article (if any).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Doctor

The article says he was a doctor, but only mentions his qualification in law. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments about renters

In the above-entitled section, the following statement is egregiously partisan:

"His speech was quickly criticized by NDP partisan hacks who never had a fun time while they were young.[32]" Filmhunter (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Urgent bias issue

The user Bearcat locked this article today but before doing so, he added in obviously biased comments made by an anonymous user just a few days ago, all without any discussion in the talk section of this article. Bearcat has put in a "whacky times" section and a "sexism controversy" section which again are obliviously biased and were placed in by an anonymous user on or about October 10th. Bearcat, is there a conflict of interest here on your part? I kept reverting back to a October 10th version of this article before there was an edit war going on. I am requesting that you revert back to that version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you examine the edit history and contents of both the Andrew Wilkinson and John Horgan articles, it appears that in fact the John Horgan article is being washed by people with a bias to "clean" the article whereas the Andrew Wilkinson article is being flooded with negative and obviously biased comments and sections. Again, obviously biased sections were added in by an anonymous user a few days ago, I reverted the changes and requested that we discuss any changes in the talk section and now without warning, Bearcat has added in these obviously new biased comments by an anonymous user and locked the article.

Firstly, you've been getting blowback for months for editwarring and potential WP:COI — and secondly, your determination to remove purportedly biased content here has been matched by an equal determination to add content to John Horgan's article that's been disputed as biased as well. That does not make you look like a person who's concerned with neutrality; it makes you look like a BC Liberal partisan who's trying to use Wikipedia for campaign purposes, by making sure Wilkinson is portrayed in a more positive light than Horgan.

I do not live in British Columbia, so I have no dog in the fight when it comes to a BC election — but your edit history is not filling me with confidence that you can say the same. My job as an administrator is to step in and stop editwarring from happening. That's it, that's all.

You may discuss why you believe the content in question to be biased — but you are not entitled to editwar with people, and you are not entitled to order other people to "stop editing the article" as you keep doing. That is not how this place works. You're simply asserting that certain sections of this article are biased, without explaining anything about how or why they should be seen that way — essentially, you're going with the "it's true because I say so" school of argument, not providing actual reasons why the content in question is problematic. That's the #1 problem right there. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please let me know why you immediately allowed the obviously biased sections to be added in by an anonymous user, "whacky times" controversy and "sexism controversy"? These were added in on October 10th and I do not feel that they belong without proper context. For John Horgan, I tried to add in comments about the highly controversial election call which was covered all over the news media since the election was called. That section I added in was removed and I was told to "take to it to the talk section to reach a consensuses". So why are you allowing controversial statements and issues for Andrew Wilkinson to be posted without any discussion yet for John Horgan, these statements are being removed and we are told to "Take it to the talk section"? Check for yourself. For John Horgan, his entire page is "washed" and all controversies (there are many) are being removed and not allowed. I do not represent one party or another. I do feel however that we should have all of the facts and that if you examine the two articles, one of the articles is clearly "washed" while the other one is not and editors are containing to allow negative biased sections to be placed, even by anonymous users. The section you allowed in "whacky times" and "sexism controversy" were literally put in by someone by an IP address without a Wikipedia account.

There is a clear bias at play here which could interfere with the election process. Look at the comments you allowed added in. I am accused of being a "BC Liberal partisan" which I am not yet comments from clearly biased comments are being allowed to be posted anonymously about Andrew Wilkinson. Yet for John Horgan, even the slight hint of something negative that quite frankly has been the #1 news topic since the election was called all over the news, is not allowed, removed, and we are told "seek a consensuses in the talk section"? Again, I am not biased. What I am trying to do is to eliminate the clear bias that is occurring. Check the articles yourself, see who has been posting, and what they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you allowed and posted a "whacky times" and "sexism controversy" section about Andrew Wilkinson, am I allowed to repost the section about the controversy surrounding the election call by John Horgan? And can I add in a section about the controversial back to school plan? Again, these are two sections that have been covered all over the news for months now so I see no reason as to why a "whacky times" section and "sexism controversy" section is added in about one leader but controversies about the other leader are not being allowed and "washed".

To sum this up, I think that ALL THREE leaders in this province should have a "controversy" section about them. That is part of the problem in this province. There appears to be people employed by the various parties or political supporters that are removing very relevant content. So again, I am NOT asking that you remove the sections about Andrew Wilkinson's controversies. In fact, we should expand on them. But in all fairness, if you are allowing those sections to be added in without question about Andrew Wilkinson then you should also allow similar sections to be added in about John Horgan and also the leader of the Green party. Can I please proceed as such and can you please monitor those articles as well to ensure that they are not "washed" and that I am not told to "take it to the talk" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide an actual explanation of what's "obviously biased" about the sections you label as "obviously biased"? You keep just saying they are, while failing to explain what the actual problem is — the content is clearly supported by sources, for example, and clearly not editorializing, so it is not so "obviously biased" that any actual explanation of what's biased about it is unnecessary on the grounds that it's somehow "patently self-evident".

"Could interfere with the election process", you say? When the polls have already closed?

And incidentally, nobody here knows who you are in real life: we can only judge your edits on the basis of what they look like, and your edit history does not look like that of a genuinely neutral party. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There does appear to be a bias at play then. When I added in a section to John Horgan's article about the highly controversial election call that was done during the pandemic, that section was removed. I was not told the reason why. They just kept removing it and eventually told me "take it to the talk section". Same for the highly controversial back to school plan. John Horgan was the Premier and those actions were highly controversial and covered all over the news media for months now. There is normally a section about a premier/governor when there are controversial issues yet here in BC, any mention of such a thing is being removed. I was not told why those sections were considered biased nor was I told why they were being removed. Again, please check that for yourself. To me, it simply appeared as if people didn't like mere fact that the mere mention of the controversies were added in to the articles.

If your explanation as to how Wikipedia works is true then can you please have a talk with the people that removed the sections I added in because they are clearly going against everything you have explained to me. Since you allowed and posted a "whacky times" and "sexism controversy" section about Andrew Wilkinson, am I allowed to repost the section about the controversy surrounding the election call by John Horgan? Again, no one has explained why they removed what I added in. They simply said to take it to the talk section (see for yourself). And can I add in a section about the controversial back to school plan? Again, these are two issues that have been covered all over the news for months now so I see no reason as to why a "whacky times" section and "sexism controversy" section is added in about one leader but controversies about the other leader are not being allowed and "washed".

To sum this up, I think that ALL THREE leaders in this province should have a "controversy" section about them. Every time I tried to add one in about John Horgan, it was removed and I was told "we don't like that, take it to the talk". That is part of the problem in this province. There appears to be people employed by the various parties or political supporters that are removing very relevant content. So again, I am NOT asking that you remove the sections about Andrew Wilkinson's controversies. In fact, we should expand on them. But in all fairness, if you are allowing those sections to be added in without question about Andrew Wilkinson then you should also allow similar sections to be added in about John Horgan and also the leader of the Green party. Can I please proceed as such and can you please monitor those articles as well to ensure that they are not "washed" and that I am not told to "take it to the talk" page? I will add in more context/controversies for all three leaders.

If you examine what I have done in the past, you can see that this is what I tried to accomplish, a balance and fairness for all three leaders. We need to eliminate any type of bias and as such, we need to expand on the controversy section for all three leaders, including Andrew Wilkinson. Please let me know. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 October 2020

First section, in the following sentence: Failure to deal with these controversies, as well as charges that Wilkinson's leadership during the campaign was ineffectual, caused Wilkinson to be criticized widely, within the media, the public, and within his the Liberal Party.

Remove an extra "his" Telters (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)