Talk:Angela Rayner

Material about GMP

Please discuss here any proposed changes to the section about an investigation into Rayner's properties by the GMP. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article says "Stockport Council it would review suggestions that she had committed tax or electoral fraud." (presumably the word "said", or similar, is missing). But I can see no support, in either of the two existing sources, for that claim. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

We should fix, where possible. I don't have a Times subscription, but the google cache of their articles on the subject includes the line "Stockport council is also reviewing suggestions that Rayner committed electoral or tax fraud." Other news sources state that what Stockport council are reviewing is something quite different. The FT makes no mention of Stockport council in any of three articles on the topic. From that perspective, it looks like undue weight to a single source, despite its reputation. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: The BBC's roundup of newspaper headlines gives the relevant context in the Times: 'the Times says she is under "renewed pressure" after Stockport Council said it would review suggestions she had committed electoral or tax fraud. The Times explains that a Conservative Party deputy chair James Daly wrote to Stockport Council asking it to investigate whether Ms Rayner had been misleading about her living arrangements. The council has told the paper it's "reviewing the questions put to us".' So they're reviewing what an opposition party offical suggested to them; the more direct claim seems to be from the sub-headline - not a reliable source - so perhaps clarify what Stockport council are actually reviewing if it's decided to keep the use of the source. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we previously had mention of James Daly, I think. AFAIK the council would be interested only in which address was registered as Rayner's "main residence" for the purposes of the Electoral Register. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I went back through all the edits since 2024-04-12T11:28:37, and have restored the section as it was at 2024-04-27T23:34:26 as I think there was a consensus amongst the several editors that had worked on it up that point that it was accurate and acceptable. Sure it is not perfect, but it is a better foundation for future development than the corrupted version that Cambial Yellowing left us with at 2024-05-08T12:39:22. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the sockpuppet contributions reinserted by DeFacto. There is no consensus for the material. DeFacto, please do not falsely claim that the actions of one blocked sockpuppet represent a consensus when multiple editors reverted their changes. It's a waste of your and everyone else's time to read your claims. The sockpuppet's input counts for nothing towards any consensus, either real or imagined by you. We can and do ignore their contributions. If you would like to put your argument for adding such content, feel free to do so. Until there is a consensus of legitimate editors, refrain from continually adding it back to the article. Thanks. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, that passage was added by editor 1 on 15 April, then tweaked by editor 2 and editor 1 a couple of times, then removed by editor 3, then restored by editor 1, then tweaked by editor 4, editor 1, and editor 2 a few times. It then remained stable from 24 April until you messed up the whole section on 8 May.

And no, I did not even "claim", let alone "falsely claim", that the actions of one blocked sockpuppet represent a consensus. As I said, I think (per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) that, up to that point (8 May, prior to your edit), it was the consensus.

I'm ambivalent as to whether it is worthy content, but would prefer to see a content-based reason for removal rather than hostility towards another editor and disingenuous comments and edit summaries. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

that passage was added by editor 1 on 15 April - No, it was added by a sockpuppet on 15 April. It was then removed by Sirfurboy on BLP objections. The sock reverted Sirfurboy. Comments in response to the sock above, and in edit summaries, indicate that two editors opposed it, one editor expressed clear ambivalence either way, and one editor supported it. That is not a consensus to include by any stretch of the imagination. WP:EDITCON is a weaker form of consensus in any case. Where an ostensible EDITCON is the result, as in this instance, of a blocked user - unknown to others - evading their block (and ignoring BLP policy), and it runs counter to views on the talk page, it is not a consensus. As this was earlier removed on BLP grounds, consensus must be obtained before restoring the sockpuppet's edits. Let's see if such a consensus that this is appropriate emerges. I tend toward Sirfurboy's view in edit summary that it is rather tabloid. This is not a news website and claims and counterclaims by third (or fourth) parties are of little or no encyclopaedic value. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, the sockpuppet is editor 1 in my scheme, yes. As you say, three other editors participated in its final form. That three editors touched it after it was restored, and no-one got rid of it or started a talkpage section on it during the following two weeks resulted in the consensus we had by 8 May.

As I said before, I'm ambivalent as to whether we keep it, or not, but would prefer to see a content-based reason for removal of the stable version rather than hostility towards another editor, and I don't see that we have that yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What hostility? Cambial — foliar❧ 21:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, what hostility? The targeting of all content initiated by a specific editor, regardless of its current status or current content.

A more productive strategy, assuming that the objective is to improve the article, would surely be to check all content as it currently exists, against the sources cited for it, regardless of who the originating editor was and how many times it has been edited, or by whom. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See the relevant policy for cleaning up after a sock of a blocked editor: changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, are left to stand. Changes that were already reverted by editors on BLP grounds are reverted, as are ambiguous cases (this instance is not ambiguous). Observing the guidelines is no indication of hostility, a notion that has arisen only in your fertile imagination. Maybe take the time to familiarise yourself with them before making the kind of wild accusations that led to your four-year block. One would think, given the astonishing length of this page, that you were already familiar with sock guidelines. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You suggest that you were Observing the guidelines. Well maybe one narrow and, in my opinion, unnecessarily strict, interpretation of them.

The relevant policy section starts Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block.... Yes, "free to", and continues This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor... So the 'hostility' was in the decision to revert their edits when it was optional, especially as it also exempts changes that are obviously helpful, which some of those removed were.

The next paragraph says When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. And it was your failure to do that that led me to revert your mass deletion in the first place, as well as your careless removal of content added by editors other than your declared target.

Remember too what this page is for as none of us are above the 'law' here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. Again, there is no "declared target", merely the normal and appropriate cleanup. We are long past any productive part of this off-topic conversation, if there ever were one. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, you were clearly targeting the contributions of that editor, regardless of the fact that it had been evolved by other editors or the value of the resulting content. I pointed out your error in removing someone else's content and the false assumptions you asserted, and although you seem unable to graciously accept that, and instead, indulged in a bit of inflammatory snarkiness, I cannot see any point in continuing here, so will leave it at that. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Nope, your assumptions are wrong. FYI, I muted notifications from you about a year ago the last time you started posting irrelevant walls of text somewhere, so I don’t receive your very numerous pings. Save your typing fingers, if you like. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ouch. "Four years is a long time in Wiki politics", as one Labour PM once said. (I like that canine name best!) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I always find this aspect of policy quite troublesome. Even sockpuppets sometimes can't help but add useful material? I'm sure DeFacto was only trying to restore what he saw as a consensus baseline. Personally I'd be happy to see that restored and then adjusted if required. Everything seems to have gone quiet at the moment anyway. I'm sure we'd soon spot any new sockpuppet activity. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Capping of thread contents

Does anyone else think that the capping out (the light brown collapsed stuff) of contributions in the first part of the #Tax fraud investigation thread above is ridiculous? Especially as it hides the contributions of editors other than the alleged sockpuppet. It makes the threads very difficult to follow. Surely the standard striking of just their text would be sufficient to satisfy anyone's craving to be make a point? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the content of the entire thread is possibly of historical value. But, to tell you the truth, I hope that I never have to read any of it ever again. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The evidence-free accusation of bad faith in OP's comment, while not surprising, detracts from its argument. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I know... let's all argue pointlessly amongst oursleves, shall we, so the sock gets the last laugh? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Evidence? For what accusation now? Why not just tell us why you did it and why you think we need the cumbersome capping? Please. I want to know what we think we'll loose if I uncap them. It's clear what we'll gain. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Your silly, slightly puerile accusation that cleanup after a sock was "to satisfy anyone's craving to be make a point [sic]". The collapse of lengthy and repetitive explanations to a blocked user – that their proposals are not appropriate; that sources must fully support the content; etc – is not cumbersome. Having them take up unnecessary page acreage would not be a "gain". Cambial — foliar❧ 17:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to archive it all out of sight. But I'm guessing there are rules that prohibit that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a live discussion. We can archive it whenever we like. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Shall we uncap it first though? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't. I just archived. I don't have any opnion as to whether it should be capped or not in the archive, so you can edit it in there if you wish. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, it wasn't an accusation though, it was a rhetorical question. Don't you think that the normal striking-out adequately makes the point about sockpuppet comments?

You seem determined to try to undermine everything I say in relation to all this - as if you are trying to evade the issues. And that means we waste so much time doing the soft-shoe shuffle on the head of pin, rather than concentrating on the quality of the article. That makes collaboration extremely tedious. I wish you would assume good faith, rather than continually suggesting I'm up to no good here, and address the substantive point.

The gain is that the thread is easier to read without the cappings - that's my view and I cannot see anyone else disagreeing so far. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate you perceive it that way. Have a great weekend though! Toodles. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Father

Why does this article mention several of her family members, but not her father? 2A00:23EE:2828:1DD9:7104:2604:9294:20DA (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably because he has never been mentioned in many WP:RS reports. The Guardian here says he "walked out". He's also mentioned by the Daily Mail here, but we can't use that source. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article says he left & returned many times. The Early life and career section should mention him. Many readers of this article will assume he wasn't in her life at all when she was growing up. 2A00:23EE:2828:1DD9:7104:2604:9294:20DA (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Feel free to add some material with that source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Short description change

Moved from Talk page:DeFacto

Hey sorry just realized my link in my edit summary was broken. Meant to link WP:SDDATES, which says: [Office description] from startyear to endyear for people who's period in office is most important. We leave birth years out for those per WP:SDLENGTH. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)