Talk:G4S Secure Solutions/Archives/2016

Omar Mateen section

I agree that something about him should be in this article, but in the current form, it's too much. We're talking about actions involving Mateen before he worked for this company and that this company had no part in. After as well. This should have probably 2-4 sentences about it and a hatnote sending readers to the article about Mateen, where I'm sure his past will be dissected in detail. Remember, this article is about G4S Secure Solutions, not Omar Mateen. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• So nobody is going to discuss? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. Every single element you deleted pertains to the many red flags that G4S studiously ignored and shortcomings in its hiring practices. Any corporation in the business is required by contracts to do legitimate background checks and screenings. It also failed to appropriately deal with his explosiveness and on-the-job behavior. These included his history of inflammatory remarks and his rapid dismissal at the Florida DOC as a result, prior to hire by the corporation, as well as the repeated warnings that it got about his behavior during his tenure, including his repeated diatribes, his braggings about supposed ties to specific terrorists or organizations, and his alleged substantial conflicts with and threats against at least one of his fellow employees who quit when the firm failed to act appropriately. This absolutely belongs in any article about the corporation's performance in the U.S. I restored your hat, as I feel that is useful. Activist (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Patience? There was no patience involved in running here to put all the info in. I think the P word here is "priority" and the activist activity took precedence over discussing. That said, I left plenty of info about what the company actually did. What I removed was mainly details about what Mateen himself did. I did leave much of that, including about his "violent, racist and homophobic tirades", that the FBI investigated him and that he was moved as a result. I also left in the company actions, such as the shrink who says she never saw him and the company claiming they never got complaints. In the end, my version is simply cleaner and more neutral. As I said in the edit summary, this should give us the high points and direct readers to the bio on Mateen, where I'm certain you'll ensure every detail gets inserted. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nightshift36's edits. The coverage in the current version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G4S_Secure_Solutions&oldid=726803188) is sufficient coverage without going into excessive detail or content unrelated to G4S.Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just thirteen hours after you had left a note regarding the G4S Secure Solutions article, you asked "Is nobody going to discuss?" That's what prompted my "patience" comment. I didn't have the article on my watchlist. Then you removed the text, as if it were not worthy of any mention, that indicated he, with a history of homophobic remarks on the job, had murdered 49 people targeted because they were in a mostly gay club. You deleted the fact that he had been fired at the FL DOC because of his approving remarks about the terrorist attack at Virginia Tech. You deleted the fact that G4S contended its records claimed it properly evaluated him for his employ. You deleted the fact that his supposed evaluator had sold her therapist business, two years before the evaluation that G4S claimed she had done had been accomplished, and that she said she moved from Florida before that misattributed evaluation. You deleted the fact that the doctor whom G4S now claimed evaluated him, had never met him but only reviewed an MMPI2 he'd filled out. You removed the reports of his inflammatory remarks made to coworkers, and his bragging that he had family connections to al Qaeda and his claim of a relationship to Hezbollah. So G4S, like most members of its industry, failed to do an adequate screening and despite his history, put him in charge of doing security of people entering a courthouse. Obviously, and they should have known this, that questioned whether or not he should have been put in charge of screening people like himself who were a danger to others in the courthouse. The typical McDonalds' worker is probably better screened than Mateer was. Your "cleaner" version contained errors in grammar and spelling. Then, rather than assuming that my edits were made in good faith, that my edits were not about Mateer, but rather how it failed to do its job, you questioned my integrity. I've added details of the second FBI investigation in 2014, by the way, of which G4S would have been aware. Activist (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• 13 hours? You need to do your math again. My first question was on 22 June. The next comment was 24 June. There is no possible way for the calendar to advance 2 days in 13 hours. You've got a massive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. I've never said that most of that stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It just doesn't belong HERE. It probably belongs in his bio and is probably already there. But this is about the COMAPNY. You make a lot of flase claims here. For example, I "You deleted the fact that G4S contended its records claimed it properly evaluated him for his employ. You deleted the fact that his supposed evaluator had sold her therapist business, two years before the evaluation that G4S claimed she had done had been accomplished, and that she said she moved from Florida before that misattributed evaluation." No, I shortened it to say that "The company claims that a psychologist evaluated and cleared Mateen for his firearms licence in 2007, but she she said she stopped working for the company in 2005 denies ever meeting him." That tells us that the shrink stopped working there before the alleged exam and that the company had made this dubious claim. It doesn't matter if she moved from Florida or not. She wasn't doing work for them. You're adding a lot of detail that doesn't belong here. Whether or not he made anti-homosexual comments before he worked for G4S belongs in his bio, not THIS article. I haven't questioned your integrity, but I do question your motivation. In any case, as you can see, I'm not the only one who agrees with this edit and a third editor tweaked it as well. You need to do more than just edit war. Instead of telling me what I am doing, why not address the specific points of your edits, one at a time? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in my haste and aggravation I mistook your 24th response to yourself on the 22nd as the 23rd: 13 hours instead of 36 hours. BFD. You removed the info about the 49 murders. The other editors who tweaked the article only cleaned up your spelling and grammar mistakes. It is precisely info about the company that you're watering down, such as their acceptance of his claim that he was fired by the FLDOC because he had a fever. You think an HR person would believe that, without checking further? It was that evaluator who made the point that she had moved away from Florida before she supposedly did the evaluation and it was reporters who thought it was important enough to mention it in their stories. (She was likely particularly sensitive about the issue because she had been publicly very wrong years earlier about another security guard who later killed one person and turned another into a paraplegic, and because she had been contacted by the media because her name was on Mateen's notarized clearance.) Mateen regularly made anti-homosexual (though it was clear from his behavior and comments that he's long been bisexual, which should not be a subject of this article) comments before he was hired by G4S, and did so very publicly while he was on the job at G4S, which in part caused his removal by G4S from the court security job. You removed the info about him never being actually seen by a psychologist though professional practice would require that. You removed the info about the inflammatory comments and connections to al Qaeda and Hezbollah, that were of such major significance that they caused two extensive, expensive and time-consuming FBI investigations of him (during which they would have talked with his employer), and you wholly removed info about that second FBI investigation. I supported your deletion about Obama's comments about his being ordered to attack the club. Your comment about me, I'm not sure that an editor who titled a section "employee terrorist" is the one to decide neutrality, is a personal attack. I also removed title that and retitled it with simply the killer's name, instead of how it was originally presented by another editor: Clerical error. (49 murders should instead be described with a section title: Clerical error? ...and you really believe it was a clerical error? Spare me.) Perhaps you can explain each one of your separate deletions, rather than me justifying restoration of each removal you've made. Activist (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that when you did your most recent wholesale revert, you also restored erroneous text that I'd corrected, such as the Palast item, and the Beal employment issue. Activist (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• BFD? Yeah, it is when you blow in here and start giving me a bunch of attitude about "you only waited 13 hours". Then when it's pointed out to you, the response isn't just owning your mistake, it's more attitude. Dude, dial it back. You are the only one adding all this extraneous stuff. Look at the stuff you're saying. For example: "You think an HR person would believe that, without checking further?" That's not for you or I to decide. It doesn't matter how many times he made anti-gay remarks. It's in there that he made them. This is getting tedious. Go put all this stuff in his bio, but, as I have said, and @Dialectric: agrees, this should be narrowly related to what G4S specifically did and then direct people to the Mateen bio. Clearly you have some axe to grind with G4S, but you're going too far here. I'd suggest seeking input at the NPOVN. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I continue to support the 1 paragraph version. If there is content in that paragraph that doesn't match with our sourcing, or there are other relevant RS that specifically discuss G4S, those would be reasonable additions. Otherwise, as Niteshift says, content that isn't specifically about G4S belongs in the Mateen article instead.Dialectric (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36:, @Dialectric:, @Niteshift36:, @Wnt:, The problem, was not what G4S SS did, with regards to Mateer, but what it should have done but didn't do. Thank you for finally restoring my edits regarding Palast and Beal and the lawsuits and the areas of security provision that you had repeatedly deleted, along with the G4S vis-a-vis material on Mateen. Activist (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• And that's part of the problem..... you're talking about what they should have done. That's your opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the Mateen section belongs in the article. Some editing can be done to shorten bits that stray too far afield, but his on-duty appearance in The Big Fix (2011 film) should be added. The section may seem large relative to the rest of the article, but this is basically the only setting in which most of us have ever heard of G4S. To balance the article, find some workhorse materials filling in basics of what the company is and does, rather than tearing down the one piece of low-hanging fruit that has been reasonably well developed. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you never heard of probably the largest private security company in the US before, but that doesn't make adding all of this relevant. And why on earth would we add anything about a movie appearance? This article is about the COMPANY. The idea of adding more about the company to justify adding this extraneous material is absurd. As I said, I think we should see input from NPOVN.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Niteshift36:, @Dialectric:, @Niteshift36:, @Wnt:,I would not have added the staggering problems that brought G4S, the corporation that owns G4S Solutions, to worldwide public infamy: The London 2012 Olympics when the government had to bring in the armed services to cover for what G4S had failed to do. That was not a problem for which G4S Secure Solutions had any responsibility. But its hiring practices in the U.S. are very much an appropriate subject for this article. It isn't what they did: It's what they didn't do. Activist (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• G4S has a separate article from G4S Secure Solutions. Since it operates in the US, obviously the 2012 Games has no place here. And no, your take on their hiring practices doesn't belong here. It's SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Niteshift36:, @Dialectric:, @Niteshift36:, @Wtn:, It's not my take, and I didn't just "blow in" here. The media, particularly in Florida, is endeavoring to explore how this could have happened and why. For instance, the Agricultural Commissioner's office oddly has oversight regarding these gun permits. That office is foundering, in response. I've gotten rid of material in this article that didn't belong here that you and Dialectric have let stand for over a year, at least (where in April 2015, you were deleting vandalism), such as the inappropriate reference to CSC, which never had anything to do with G4S (I removed it this past March), and the erroneous info regarding Beal and the incorrect and confusing statement about Palast, and have made those corrections which you two had left in situ at least 15 months ago and probably much longer. Similarly, you both left that hodgepodge of fragments about the sectors within which G4S was contracting. Activist (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is your take on it. You're talking about what they should have asked or should have known or what you believe. You're creating the POV. The "Agricultural Commissioner" is actually the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. It has statutory responsibility for many professions, including security guards, repo men, telemarketers, pawn brokers and mechanics. There is nothing odd about this. Once again, you form an opinion and really don't know as much about it as you think you do. Clean up the other parts if you like, but leave opinion out of it. You're not an activist here, so your agenda should be NPOV, not "what they should have known". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sure. I don't know anything except for what I read, and I read this kind of comment in a number of places: "Mateen applied for a state security guard license, the type that allows the holder to carry a firearm, and he got one, said Adam Putnam, state agriculture commissioner. Mateen was a U.S. citizen, had no criminal record and passed a psychological test." Orlando Sentinel 6/13/06. Activist (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Right, you only know a line that you read some place. You have no actual knowledge of the subject beyond what someone tells you. That's why you didn't know that it's the Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services, that it has regulated security guards for at least a decade, if not two, and that Florida law is structured so that if there isn't a specific, statutorily enumerated reason to deny the license, the state has to issue it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever your needs are, stop insulting me, and don't call me "dude" any more. Activist (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• My "needs" are a NPOV article. I'm sorry that conflicts with your agenda, but let's try to work past that, shall we? I'm sorry that you find it insulting to point out that you lack actual knowledge on a subject. A full day and four responses later, you finally get around to complaining that I called you "dude"? Really? You had nothing else to go with? Fine, I apologize for calling you "dude". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Niteshift36:, @XavierItzm:, @ThePlatypusofDoom:, @Wnt: This needs to stop. I don't need to "...go with." anything. You know little or nothing about me, including my gender. You continue to insult me as you have others. Your chronic, insincere, "I'm sorry," comments to me and other editors, here and in other Talk pages, are intended to demean. You need to get a grip on yourself. I am well aware that the Commissioner of Agriculture, the title by which he is commonly referred, has other portfolios, much like the Texas Railroad Commissioner has accrued over the past century. In fact, before Louie Wainwright's tenure, that position was in charge of state prisons. I am also quite familiar with Adam Putnam since he was in congress, over a decade ago. You appear to live in Southwest Florida, but that doesn't convey any particular invaluable expertise to you. You visited and edited the article on June 14th, but did not see fit to write at the time any edit about the massacre which had not yet been mentioned in connection with the company's article, up to that point. Five days later, Xavierltzm added a paragraph about the killings, entitling the section, "clerical error." That no doubt that was because it was the title of the source article which he cited. It was I who first changed that section title to "Omar Mateen". On the 21st I changed my new section title to "Employee terrorist," because I felt it would draw the attention of a casual reader of the article who might not be familiar with his name. Then when you wrote about me, without pinging me, "I'm not sure that an editor who titled a section "employee terrorist" is the one to decide neutrality," you were being intentionally and transparently snide. Omar Mateen was in fact, an employee and a terrorist. I didn't have any problem with you changing it back to my original title, but you didn't need to write as the edit title: "(→‎Employee terrorist: "Employee terrorist"? Are you kidding?)" once again gratuitously insulting my editing. Subsequent to that, you eliminated reliably sourced documentation of many of the red flags I'd added to the article which G4S had somehow ignored during his employ, and which put and kept a gun in this killer's hands. It also kept him in a critical position where he could have compromised courthouse security, either personally or by allowing someone else who was armed past his checkpoint. You repeatedly removed the fact that Mateen killed 49 people as if it had zero significance. I expect the corporation will be forever associated with this tragedy just as the Texas Book Depository will be associated with Lee Harvey Oswald. Lastly, in your zeal to remove my edits, you repeatedly reverted corrections I'd made in other sections of the G4S Secure Solutions article, until you finally restored them after my continuing complaints about them. I'm baffled why you didn't restrict your reverts solely to the section with which you disagreed. I this case, I corrected the text which you restored, that read:

In the U.S., Wackenhut has appeared in the federal courts 62 times since 1999,

My change was simple and solved a problem: The "62 times since 1999" refers to a mention in the Palast book that is dated and for which a cite was requested three years ago. So I struck the "62 times..." and substituted "frequently has appeared." That eliminated the need for tedious, substantial and pointless research and your accompanying undated . You termed my effort "weasel word POV" and changed frequently to has. But in fact, "has" could mean once, as easily as it could mean one hundred times. I don't know what possesses you to weaken the text and to insult me at the same time. I don't care, really. But I would hope you could constrain yourself. If you genuinely would like "to work past that," I would suggest an apology is in order, and if that is beyond you, you could at the very least desist in the diatribes on my intelligence and character. I am certainly willing to give it another try, but I'm not going to tolerate your continuing personal attacks. Activist (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1. It's true, I wasn't sincere when I apologized for calling you dude 2 days ago. Just like I don't believe you were truly offended by it, given that it took you a day and 4 responses to finally bring it up.
2. It doesn't matter who was first to change the section to "Omar Mateen", the fact that you ever made it read "employee terrorist" is absolutely ridiculous.
3. I actually do have some expertise on the topic at hand, but I'm not relying on it because it would be WP:OR and, unlike you, I don't engage in that.
4. I don't have to ping you with every response and, quite frankly, your pinging of every person that has edited here for every response is overkill. I have the page on my watchlist. You can stop adding me to your pingfest every time you reply.
5. I haven't removed Mateen from the article, I just restricted the text to what is relevant to the company. To use your own example, the Texas Book Depository article does exactly what I am doing here, a couple of paragraphs and a hatnote. It doesn't mention major things, such as Oswald defecting to our main enemy at the time, the Soviet Union. (Which is a bigger red flag than making anti-gay comments). I'd submit that the Kennedy assassination was a more historically relevant event, but the depository article doesn't try to re-tell the story. It tells you where to go for the story. Just like this article should.
6. You may think 62 times is "many" or "frequent". I may not. That's why we don't insert our opinions by adding words like "many", "frequent" etc. And there shouldn't be a running count, especially when you don't give the outcomes. Say Mr. Jones got arrested 50 times, but were never convicted. Is it fair to put in that Jones was arrested 50 times and leave it there, making people think his criminal record is as long as their arm? Have you actually read WP:WEASEL? And calling it "weasel words" are EXACTLY what the Manual of Style calls them. It's not insulting, so stop looking to be a victim in every response.
7. Your comments about the DACS indicate that you don't really know much about the office. Knowing about Putnam in Congress doesn't mean you understand the DACS.
8. Perhaps if you don't try to make everything into a personal issues (such as properly using the term "weasel words"), you will find fewer "personal attacks".
9. I'm done discussing alleged attacks or what you think you know about me. Your last response is almost entirely about who said what to you or when it was said. You discussed very little about the actual content. (note the word "almost", so you don't have to list the couple of items you did sort of discuss) Discuss the actual issue for a change. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1. @XavierItzm:, @ThePlatypusofDoom:, @Wnt:I didn't realize that it is you who gets to set the standard for the time in which a response to bad behavior must be made.
2. Entirely your own opinion. Others might feel it was not "ridiculous" at all.
3. I can't imagine that you're not exaggerating your alleged "expertise."
4. No problem. No more pings for you.
5. The task of management at the Texas Book Depository was to store textbooks, not to take responsibility for security in an age before terrorism had become a prime concern. Had it been, even 53 years ago, it would have likely rejected Oswald as a hire. It certainly would not have put and kept a gun in his hands. Activist (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
6. This objection is quite bizarre. I removed the "62 times" because that was a figure that was researched long ago by Greg Palast. You should have removed it a year ago when you were scrubbing the article, because it no longer represented current information. If you are unable to understand the distinction between one time or 50, or 62, and that "frequently" describes considerably more than 1, there's no point in discussing your de minimus objections. The tenor of your complaints remind one of Through the Looking Glass. "The word means what I want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less. The question is, 'who is to be master, that's all?'."
7. Your evaluation of what I do or don't know about the DACS is a pointless diversion and without any basis. You are not a "reliable source."
8. Perhaps if you were able to deal with your need for making personal attacks on those who disagree with you, other exasperated editors would not have to raise the subject when you go off on still other editors on such occasions as when you wrote this about one who had the misfortune to encounter you: "I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory." You were given wise counsel from another editor in that case, which you apparently chose to ignore: "Look, man, cool it down some. Repeatedly going off on (deleted editor's handle) is not helping your case at all, and neither is writing answers to everything everyone says..."
9. I am discussing actual issues, so no need for the imperious mandates. The issue is the G4S failings, as Tester's remarks and his intervention has made clear. Activist (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Please stop making these massive deletions with obtaining consensus.

1. No, I don't set the standard for when you respond....but when you wait so long, it's clear that it wasn't actually an issue.
2. You're right, it is my opinion. And my opinion is that anyone who would title a section "employee terrorist" is far more interested in making a point than actually trying to craft a neutral article.
3. It doesn't matter if you believe my expertise or not since I'm not relying on it. Did you miss that part?
4. Yet you keep pinging others and at least one of them has also told you it's annoying.
5. Should,could, would..... thanks for your opinion, but it wasn't a question of whether or not Oswald should have worked there. The point was about how it is handled in the article.
6. "Frequently" is a POV term and a weasel word. It's that simple. Repeatedly using "de minimus" doesn't make your argument better, particularly when you are spelling it incorrectly. It's de minimis .
7. I didn't claim to be a reliable source....see 3 where I expressly say that I don't engage in original research or rely on my expertise. You've already demonstrated what you don't know about the DACS.
8. That editor was butt hurt and running a crap factory. I stand by that to this day. None of that changes your conduct. I'll pretend to be flattered that you're spending so much time stalking my edits.
9. You're not discussing issues as much as you're discussing editors. Read your own words and see how many of them are about me versus how many about the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion at NPOVN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#G4S_Secure_Solutions]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, here's my bid. Now @Activist:, quit trying to see which of you two gets busted for edit war and start researching, because I'm sure I missed a lot still. And @Niteshift36: ... please, don't get too carried away. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate the work and effort, but I am struggling to see how this is an improvement. You took a 62 year old company and turned approximately half of the article into an in depth look at a single employee. This version goes into explanations about the MMPI, an appearance in a documentary that has zero bearing on any of this, faulting them for not finding an arrest that was expunged and sealed, and talking about previous contracts that don't have any bearing on this incident. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I believe I've said this before: you're thinking the wrong way about this. Yes, the remainder of the company's article needs expansion. But if one part of an article is only 5% complete, you can't hold up every other part and say they can't be more than 5% complete either. This is a current event, we want to know about it, we looked it up. So we fill this in. The rest of the work is still there to be done.

The MMPI is clearly important for several reasons. a) it seems to be the way they "vet" their employees, which is interesting. It must suck to belong to some wacky religion that teaches your soul leaves your body, if you want to get hired. b) they had a choice to "vet" employees differently and took the cheap option. No surprise, but it helps show how they undersell cops. c) they submitted a bogus form, and were called on the carpet about it. All this sheds light on the company.

Not finding the arrest is of course not their fault; nonetheless, not knowing this still changes how people think of the reliability of their people.

As for the contracts, obviously we don't know what the value is of what's cancelled if we don't know the value of the contract. And, they provide useful background on the company - beyond Mateen - to compare the costs to those of police. I doubt sources that have made these comparisons turn up very often, and these price comparisons are the very essence of the company's existence. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we are heavily in your debt. I might have handled some issues a bit differently, though not necessarily better, but have no complaints about the huge amount of work you did on this, the product of your efforts, and your collegiality. What you've accomplished is extremely professional. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is resolved. More than that, I think it defuses a real problem that had taken away, in whatever limited respect, from the community as a whole. In the nine years I've been editing Wikipedia, I've never given anyone a Barnstar, but I think it's time I got around to that. Muchas gracias. P.S. I did not know about the two judges nor the cancelled purchase. Again, really great job. Activist (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

FBI: Mateen stated to his coworkers he wanted to "martyr" himself.

Which directly contradicts the immediately preceding PR sentence by G4S that "they had no record" of his co-workers complaining Mateen was saying he was a terrorist. This is not "bio" information which another editor is using to whitewash the the FBI statements as reported by the Washington Post." . XavierItzm (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Enough with your "whitewashing" nonsense. It's a personal attack and you need to stop it. This material is, without a doubt, appropriate for his bio. I wouldn't dispute that at all. We already have that a co-worker complained and says that the company did nothing. We have the company denying the complaint. We have that there was a FBI investigation. I even added in that it was begun based on the complaint of a co-worker. What is being removed is the excessive detail. Not the events, no "whitewashing", just trimming for neutrality. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Finally an edit was made that at least no longer censors that the origin of the 2013 FBI investigation was the statements the terrorist made to his G4S co-workers. Nonetheless, the blanking out of the WP:RS, which is the Washington Post, is quite unencyclopaedic, so I added it back. Still, the text will have to be edited in future, because it seems to be written as darkly as possible. XavierItzm (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• You're doing more than adding a source. Stop pretending that's the sole thing being removed. I put your source back without the backdoor addition of the lengthy quote. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It is nice to see a tacit admission I was correctly encyclopaedic all along: User Nightshift added back both the reason why the FBI started the 2013 Mateen investigation (the terrorist told his G4S co-workers he wanted to "martyr" himself) and User Nightshift added back the WP:RS source Washington Post. But it took all of this arguing, because prior to it, he used to simply summarily delete both the FBI statement and used to delete the WP:RS, arguing it was off-topic. Sad, when you think about it.XavierItzm (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• You know what is sad? That you think this was only about adding the WaPo. BTW, 1) We all know it's a reliable source. Adding RS in front of it is redundant. 2) If you're going to talk about me, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly. It's that inattention to detail that made this drag on. If you'd paid attention, it was never an objection to WaPo being added. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm:, @ThePlatypusofDoom:, @Wnt:Once again, you've done a massive revert that does nothing but remove Tester's quotes and other comments that pertain to the massive failures of judgment by G4S that defy rational explanation. You're intentionally denying the typical Wikipedia reader of critical content. Interesting too, that while you were scrubbing the well-sourced edits, you neglected to make the small edits that were actually needed and that were attended to by XavierItzm. Activist (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• How interesting that you go another ping-fest (including to people who haven't discussed it at all), but you leave out an editor who has repeatedly supported the shortened version. I left the main points and your sources. People go to the sources for lengthy quotes, in context, not just the ones you cherry-pick. Further, just like you did when talking about Mateen, you start adding in stuff that isn't related to this. Snowden? A committee Tester was on years ago? WTF? You can't put the whole source article in here. Oh, yeah, I missed a comma. To quote you, BFD. Oh, another thing.... your expanded version borders on being a copyvio. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm:, @ThePlatypusofDoom:, @Wnt: The "expanded version" was extensively rewritten, save for the quotes, of course, because they're quotes. Activist (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Just because there is a quote doesn't mean it belongs. Again, your version borders on copyvio and the fact that I've notified you twice will be noted. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Activist: Don't have a conniption; I'm working on a draft at the moment. (Niteshift shouldn't have a conniption either, because there is some harsh trimming yet in its future) I think it is possible to arrange this to have a much clearer top-down relevance to the company. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No conniptions here. I look forward to seeing your draft and hope it can resolve this contretemps. Activist (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm:, @ThePlatypusofDoom:, @Wnt: Please, Niteshift36, stop making these massive deletions with obtaining consensus. You know the rules. Activist (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Once again, you only ping those you think will help tag team this. Pretty transparent. The same rules apply to you. And there is no rule that says there has to be a consensus to remove your POV edits. Your whole argument has been about SYNTH, how you think "the truth" needs to be there and you have a demonstrated agenda against the subject. Or complaining about me. What your argument has lacked is a basis in policy or guideline. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As above, I think that USER: WNT @Wnt: has crafted an extremely reasonable compromise that should resolve a difficult situation. I fully accept it and thank this editor for exemplary patience, editorial expertise and diligence. We should all be so fortunate as to share these efforts with such as this editor. Activist (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)