Talk:Lee Rowley/Archive 1

Various unregistered editors

Hi 82.132.186.144, 82.132.243.86, 86.177.82.221, 86.161.53.18, 82.132.213.98, 82.109.228.62, 149.14.144.34, 82.132.185.76.

After failing to start a discussion here in July, i'll try again. I do not know if you are the same person logging in via different computers or are in fact multiple people. In one sense it does not matter, because all the edits are the same - i.e. deleting fully sourced information that provides balance on the subject matter and leaving thematically equal information that presents just one side.

Given that recent edits do not relate to the order of information in the main page, I will not focus on that. I'll explore the points raised most recently by unregistered editors: "Restoring page following extensive vandalism". This is factually incorrect. All information added was fully sourced and relates to national/regional publications that are acceptable as sources within Wiki guidance. There is evidence of 'vandalism', but it has been from the unregistered user(s) who have deleted entire sections. For example, the BBC report relating to Rowley being alleged to have made false claims in a press release, has been deleted by the unregistered users several times. The BBC article is a valid source in terms of Wiki guidance and the incident is clearly notable, otherwise the BBC would not have reported it. No attempt has been made by the unregistered users to critique it, they just simply delete it. Incidentally, the wording used for this item by me is studiously neutral, including the word 'alleged' before the accusation and concluding with Rowley's response where he denied it was a fair representation of the incident. Please explain why you have deleted entire sections that have sources, such as the BBC, and why you have left in one side of the argument but deleted the other (e.g. "which the Council argued was to improve traffic congestion and pollution, but critics argued was partly for income generation").

"...excessing (sic) length in article". Again, this is a problematic accusation given that the unregistered users delete articles from national media organisations like the Daily Telegraph, but leave in a whole paragraph about his support for a new nature reserve - the source of which is a local charity website. In that instance, there is no evidence provided that the 'news' of the new nature reserve even made it into the local media, let alone the national media, so this apparent attempt at managing the length of the article appears disingenuous at best. In terms of the broader accusation that detailed content on the work of Rowley as a local councillor is not needed, I think that would be a fair point except for the fact he was a cabinet member for one of the most high profile parts of the Council and that the Council in question is one of the most high profile local authorities in the country because of where it is located. The point is, Rowley's work in Westminster was notable enough to be covered in detail by regional and national newspapers. The matters raised were high profile and, given the media coverage, were arguably more significant than the work of many a backbench MP. The summaries provided are very short and in some cases just one line with a link to a newspaper article. If brevity is such a concern, why delete three lines with three links that quickly cover three news items that related to Rowley (especially odd as they were not negative pieces about his work - one said he was being 'innovative', one said he won a case, and one said he sorted a major dispute out of court). Please explain why the BBC article needs deleting, but the nature reserve one does not?

"...attempts to link events to individual unsupported by source material." Given that every bit of text I have added is provided with a link to a credible source, this is clearly just false. I assume this relates to the issue with parking charges? He was the cabinet member for the parking project in question. He was responsible for delivering it and the multiple sources provided include direct quotes from Rowley defending the scheme. He was not a 'backbench' councillor who just happened to be on the same council, he was the man responsible for the scheme. Linked to this, the unregistered user(s) has attempted to do what I am accused of themselves. Multiple attempts have been made to change the parking section to '...the Council leader's policy'. That is not how local government works. Unless Westminster Council had a Directly Elected Mayor, the policy is that of the Cabinet. Evidence has been provided that the Council Leader came up with the parking idea, which is why I have left in text that says he was the 'architect' of it, but to claim Rowley had no connection with the project he was managing as relevant portfolio holder is factually inaccurate. Please detail the exact examples where the sources do not support what they say?

Impsfan (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions

This is an encyclopedia entry, so extensive quotes from the subject about say, a new local nature reserve, are not appropriate. Short summary of the relevant achievement is adequate. That example was simply copied from the local charities website, so justifies less detail than a news story that was covered in detail by the national media. Where the preceding text carries the message, there is no need to follow this with a quotation that simply repeats the same points.

The aspects relating to work as a councillor occurred before the subject became an MP, so should be located above that in the entry, while his work as a cabinet member for community services came after the transport role. Impsfan (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion that aspects relating to work before individual became an MP should be first does not follow the Wiki convention for all other MPs. It should be in reverse chronological order in line with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.207.203 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Impsfan edits

Your edits have, by multiple users, been considered excessive in detail with neutral point of view issues. Please refrain from further changes without discussing here. User:KindTennisFan has thanked me for reverting back from your preferred text and you appear to be engaged in edit warring. BingBong2001 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi BingBong2001, hope you are well. I am at a bit of a loss to understand your statement above. There appears to be no evidence that KindTennisFan has thanked you for removing wholesale various properly referenced sections. Please can you direct me to that? There appears to be no evidence of any other users supporting your editing, which ultimately relates solely to one living person and no other pages on Wikipedia. What is visible is that Edwardx recently reverted your repeated deletions of sourced material, with the wording: "Unjustified removal of cited content. Please raise any concerns on the article talk page and reach consensus, before seeking to remove cited content." Since then you have repeated the same edits and not provided any explanation on the talk page. Taking your edits at face value, what was the justification for deleting a section regarding Lee Rowley being involved in a case where the European Commission criticised the infringement of contract laws. The case was noteworthy enough to be covered by the media and the BBC is a reputable source as per WP:BLPSOURCES. Taking this one example, why was that removed and why did you not justify the removal on the talk page as per the request from Edwardx? Impsfan (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2021(UTC)

I’m sorry you’re at a loss but this isn’t the first time these issues have been raised. Standing back - the key point is that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedic entry conforming to WP:BLPSOURCES. Even factually correct material doesn’t always belong on Wikipedia. A number of your contributions here contain excessive and intricate detail; they often rely on tabloid and free-sheet sources with widely reported conflicts of interest on some of the issues at hand; you needlessly include quotes from people on one side of the argument in the pursuit of sensationalism, when a summary is sufficient or where that level of detail would be better situated on a dedicated page (as pointed out by others). Taken together this unbalances the article breaching NPOV. If some people are for and some against something, it’s unnecessary to quote either side (and certainly not just one) as a simple summary suffices.

The relevance of the material about the EC contract law case is spurious given how insignificant it is and what essentially amounts to miss communications between the government, EU and Westminster council and where contracts the subject had no involvement in awarding. One article in local BBC news does not amount to “media attention” (given it implies wider significant) either and is an item entirely without merit on this page or should be reverted to previous less bias edits. BingBong2001 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi BingBong2001, hope you are well. Thank you for your response. The reason several Wikipedia editors have requested you engage on the Talk page is because this is the appropriate place to set out justification for edits that are at odds with what others have written. You do not appear to have addressed my comments above regarding the lack of evidence of other users supporting your edits. Please can I ask you to again address this or retract your false statement?

I appreciate that you have repeatedly raised concerns with the edits I have done on the related page for Lee Rowley, but no other registered users have done. You have raised concern with my edits on the Lee Rowley page in terms of WP:BLPSOURCES but have failed to provide any evidence that any of the items you have deleted are from unreliable 'tabloid' sources. The BBC news website and London Evening Standard are considered acceptable sources in terms of WP:BLPSOURCES. Please can you detail more clearly how these sources are not acceptable?

Of the various properly sourced material that you have repeatedly deleted, the only item you have so far addressed here is the news story relating to Rowleys work for Westminster Council and them being censured by the European Commission for infringing contract laws. You have called the case 'spurious' but failed to provide a source for that assessment. Please can you provide a source for your claim? As detailed on WP:BLPSOURCES, the BBC news website is a reliable source.

In terms of the various other items you have repeatedly deleted after multiple other editors put them back, you have still not explained why they should be deleted and/or provided reliable sources to justify your deletions. You appear to be suggesting that some of them are 'detailed elsewhere' or 'are of modest interest', but you have deleted entire references to some of the matters and left in other content that is of even more modest significance. For example, you have left in a section regarding a minor project relating to a recreation ground, where the only source is a local charity's website, but removed a reference from a mainstream media publication relating to comments from a high profile TV presenter. Rather than trimming down detail on particular items, you have deleted some wholesale without providing justification or deleted key information not provided elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Please can you set out in terms of Wikipedia editing rules the justification for the other sections you have deleted? If no properly sourced arguments are put forward, I will revert the edits and request the page is protected. Impsfan (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2021(UTC)

Hi BingBong2001, hope you are well. It has been over a month since I left my message above. If you have any responses to the points then please do provide them. Impsfan (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2021(UTC)