Talk:Salim Mehajer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (He is a well known deputy mayor in Sydney that is constantly in the news.) --192.115.144.17 (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --2A02:1811:CD07:F400:8C0D:2DF3:C58:9D3A (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... I believe it is trying to be deleted as a way of stopping free speech from the public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.216.250 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of his wedding

I'm going to add in the following:

In 2015, Mehajer came to wider public prominence in Australia and overseas after the marriage to his wife Aysha (formerly April Amelia Learmonth) was widely publicised in the media. The media focussed on Mehajer's manner of arrival, which involved flying in one of four helicopters then proceeding to the wedding in a fleet of luxury sports cars, and for his wedding video which was widely shown on media sites in Australia. He was later fined $220 for the unauthorized shutdown of Frances St in Lidcombe and for distributing a fake flyer warning residents that their cars would be towed if they interfered with the event.

Hopefully there will be no objections? - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Selim Mehajer is a highly notable person in Australia! I'm not sure why he would be considered otherwise - he was the deputy mayor of the City of Auburn Council, which is one of the biggest LGAs in Sydney. He is also highly controversial - currently he is under AFP investigation for electoral fraud, has allegations of major conflicts of interest whilst on the council in relation to personal development applications, and was notorious for allegedly threatening the father of one of the victims of the 2015 Sydney seige. - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As it stands at present, the article gives no sense of notability. It just states he was born, went to school and became a deputy mayor (which, according to WP:POLITICIAN, is not sufficient to be considered notable. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Under WP:ARTN, that's not a valid reason to slap on a speedy deletion tag. You realise, of course, that I'm literally in the middle of editing this page and to add far more information into it? As in, I was editing the article when you stuck the speedy tag onto it? And that I had added a talk page notice that I was about to add some additional material, but as I had to step out for a moment to deliver my kids to school I couldn't apply it immediately and not more than about 20 minutes later was going to add the material? - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please not redirect Salim Mehajer to Auburn City Council#History? This article may have been proposed for speedy deletion, but until it has then you really should redirect spelling renames to the most specific article available. - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of notability tag

I have removed the {{notability}} maintenance tag. WWGB, I think I've fairly clearly established his notability now. The entire basis of your argument that he is of dubious notability is that the article doesn't have enough information, but that is against the spirit of the notability guideline. In particular, I feel I need to draw your attention to WP:ARTN, which specifically notes that "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

I also note that you have put on that maintenance tag in the middle of me updating the article. I don't know why you chose to ignore the talk page or didn't review the history that would show I'm actively working on it, but I'd appreciate it if you gave me some time to update it properly. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Selim Mehajer → Salim Mehajer – This was moved by another editor from Salim Mehajer. However, he is known as Salim Mehajer, not Selim Mehajor - in fact if you go to the wayback machine you'll see that as the deputy mayor of Auburn City Council the spelling is Salim. Letsbefiends (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy move. Frickeg (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved out of Auburn City Council

Selim is a notable Sydney identity, and has gained world-wide notoriety for a variety of things. He is definitely quite public figure in Australia, in particular the state of New South Wales. He was also the deputy-Mayor of one of Australia's most multicultural and fastest-growing LGAs, the City of Auburn. He and the Council were also suspended pending an investigation of a variety of issues, of which he was a key figure. - Letsbefiends (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Letsbefiends: If this articles text is 'coped' from 'Auburn City Council', I think we need a {{Copied}} template here. 220 of ^Borg 06:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 220 - however I've rewritten it from scratch now. I wasn't aware of that template, thanks for pointing me to it! - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Further editing

This article is currently quite incomplete. I'm going over it with more care than I did on my last attempt, which was considered too negative and deleted summarily. I bow to this judgement, so as I would like to continue writing this article I will continue writing it but it will be necessarily more slow in order to keep a neutral tone. Of course, if others want to edit I'm definitely happy to see this occur! I have no intention of attempting to "own" the article.

For the next parts of the article, I think I need to focus on:

• the John St car park COI issues
• his court case which was taken out against him by Bruce Herat for intimidation - it was eventually thrown out of court as it could not be proven, but the judge extended the AVO for 12 months (see [1])
• his run-ins with creditors I think are important - the stone mason for the stair case he had built for the rapper Bow Wow's music video eventually got paid, but only after a settlement was made. Currently the business Iron World is taking him to court over an unpaid bill of $46,000 [2]
• he was suspended from Council, but this was overturned and the government ordered to pay costs - I think that's important to note in the article
• Mehajer was charged "charged with using forged documents and using false or misleading documents last December and could face 10 years in jail" by the Australian Federal Police - that is an extremely serious charge and notable in it's own right, and needs to be added to the article. [3]
• Participation in McHappy Day should at least get a mention, I think [4]

Have to find out what else I need to include. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a competition, (pageant? yep, Miss Lebanon Australia) sponsored by a Mehajer company that his sister won. The incident it is now being investigated. [5]. McHappy day?, finally something positive about Hehajer! 220 of ^Borg 08:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

High school and degree

The Australian states that:

He finished his schooling at Arthur Phillip High School in Parramatta and his education from this point is a little hazy. Last year he told a Sydney court he had a bachelor of housing degree from Western Sydney University, which we have confirmed, and that he was enrolled in an environmental engineering course at the ­University of New England (UNE) and a legal studies course at the University of Sydney. A spokes­person from UNE said he was “no longer enrolled and he never graduated”. Sydney said it has never had a student of that name.

The citation is as follows: Klan, Anthony; Bearup, Greg (December 12, 2015). "Salim Mehajer: it's good to be the deputy mayor". The Australian.(subscription required). - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Associated companies

This section is bloated and unencyclopedic. See WP:NOTDIR. The content can be simply summarised to something like "Mehajer has been a director, secretary or involved with over 20 companies". Listing ABNs and ACNs is not helpful to reader's understanding of the subject. Wikipedia does not need to list minutiae associated with a subject. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice this, because you transcluded WP:NOTDIR. I have responded below as I disagree. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Court case

It appears the following was removed, but for the life of me I can't see how it is a BLP violation:

According to Herat, on September 16, 2015 Mehajer was training at Herat's Burwood gym when he noticed Mehajer slamming down weights whilst using the gym's leg press. After asking him to stop, Herat claims Mehajer said "Who the f*** are you to talk to me? What gives you the right to tell me how to use this machine?" and refused to tell him his name. Mehajer later approached Herat in a Burwood council car park where Herat claims "he [Mehajer] then said words to me like 'this is not the end of the matter, I'm going to take it further, I'm going to find where you live motherf***er and I'm going to kidnap your children'." During proceedings in Burwood Local Court, Mehajer denied ever saying this, claiming that "Those certain words don't exist in my vocabulary".

Given this was straight from the court case and informs the reader why he was charged and why the court case occured, I don't see why this has been removed. I've put it back in, because I don't see how it is a BLP violation. It's fully and reliably sourced from verifiable records. - Letsbefiends (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Herat claimed it happened, Mehajer denied it. There is no independent corroboration. Charges were dismissed. WP:BLPCRIME applies here to protect the reputation of the subject who was found to have done nothing wrong. WWGB (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And yet that guideline only applies to people who aren't public figures. I am concerned you are giving due weight to Mehajer, when in fact the court didn't find that it was or wasn't stated. The fact is that the whole court case hinged on what was said, and not giving Herat's viewpoint seems a bit silly as its not clear why Mehajer was given an AVO, an AVO which I might add was increased by 12 months.

I want to put this back, how do we resolve this impasse? Because I feel you are pushing a line that is puzzling to me, in that the article now doesn't clearly show why the case was being prosecuted, or why Mehajer was not convicted! - Letsbefiends (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, you boldly add it, I revert it and then it is discussed here for a time. If no other editors are concerned after, say, one week then my concerns are unsupported. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that as this incident was widely reported, it is in Mehajers interest(?) or balance for the story to be reported, especially what the legal result was. Politician getting an AVO is a fairly uncommon event, hence notable? I think Herat was the father of one of the Lindt cafe siege hostages, which likely caused the incident to be more 'news worthy'.
Nb. "AVO"= Apprehended Violence Order. 220 of ^Borg 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong article name

Apart from the dubious notability of the subject, why do you persist in placing the article under the name SELIM Mehajer? There seems no doubt that the correct and preferred spelling is SALIM. IF there is a place for this article (and that is a big "if"), it should be placed under the most commonly-used name per WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

How is his notability dubious? Are you from Australia? The entire nation has a view on the man. Major daily newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph, The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald have published numerous articles about him. He was a member of local government, which you may not think is notable except for the fact that he was the deputy Mayor of an entire City and is now facing investigation by the Australian Federal Police over electoral fraud. I mean, without going into the guys history (which, I should note, I'm literally in the middle of doing!) that alone makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.

As for being called Selim Mehajer, I never "persisted" on doing anything. If you were to review the article history of Salim Mehajer you would notice that it was moved to this location by 220 of Borg. It doesn't show in the history of this article because this article was deleted by an admin. Perhaps a little bit of WP:AGF might be in order here? - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. feel free to move it back to Salim Mehajer. Given I'm not an admin, I can't perform the move. Another reason why it's not very fair to say that I "persist" on placing the article under this name. - If you are concerned about this, please feel free to do the move yourself (I'm assuming you are an admin of course). - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given someone else thought it was the wrong name (not me) it might be a bit controversial to just go ahead and do this. I'm requesting this be moved on WP:RM#CM. - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Letsbefiends and Anthony Appleyard: I think it's at the 'wrong name', again. I thought it was "Salim Mehajer". If I recall correctly, I created the 'original' "Selim Mehajer" page as a redirect to Auburn Council. I either made a typo, or decided that Salim was a more common usage based on news reports in WP:RS, and moved the re-direct to that spelling. Right now, the page name and content disagrees as to the spelling.
As for Ghits, "Selim Mehajer" only gets 543, [6] "Salim Mehajer"[7] gets 267,000. 220 of ^Borg 06:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: actually, the history log shows you moved it from Salim to Selim... but it's Salim (though he also goes by Selim). - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Did I? Facepalm . Too...many...page...moves, getting...confused.... My 'RS's get it wrong too! They use Selim in the URL, but Salim in the text. (and probably vice-versa). Definitely not "Me-jah-er" though! 220 of ^Borg 08:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: I'm sure we've all done something similar at least once in our Wikipedia editing time :-) Letsbefiends (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the controversy? I've never seen so much hassle over fixing a damn typo. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: It was more of a mistake than a controversy. However, the initial request (if you could call it a "request"..) was for me not to use Selim Mehajer and use the Salim Mehajer, even though I had nothing to do with it - and it was done in a needlessly aggressive manner IMHO. That same person added the original article to CSD, which was correct, but then decided to try to do an end run around the process by requesting a speedy deletion under the grounds of notability, which I dispute. Hence, controversy. - Letsbefiends (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hang around, such things as speeling spelling shouldn't, but do, cause edit wars IIRC. 220 of ^Borg 08:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: believe me, I know :-) I'm the guy who organised all the admins by starting WP:AN. ;-) don't hate me for it, I have covered myself In enough sackcloth and ashes over the years for making that decision.... - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues

This article is starting to look a bit of a mess. I supported an article being broken out on Mehajer because the ridiculous amount of sources justified it, but having an article != a license to ignore WP:BLP. It undermines the case for him having an article if it invariably makes for ridiculously obsessive coverage of his life as listed here: it's not notable, it's wildly undue weight, and it implies that an article that isn't a raging mess can't be written.

I just deleted an incredible 11,843 bytes and four long paragraphs of writing about car crashes he'd gotten into. It even reports on his wife having allgedly gotten a defect notice for her car! The obsessive detail, the comments of the magistrates, the responses from Mehajer, and the entire contents of the third paragraph around petty traffic offences, the dismissed charge, etc. are massive overkill and should not be in this article period.

I can see a case for including the cases on which he was found guilty, albeit in a much, more brief fashion, but this section in particular was just a wild violation of BLP and if it goes back in, it really needs to be cut down by at least three quarters.

Equally, the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Righto. I stop entirely :-) Letsbefiends (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. you don't think a section 10 is important? - Letsbefiends (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And he drove over two women and had to pay out $1.35 million dollars through his insurer?!? Wow... I can see that this just isn't worth it really. - Letsbefiends (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And you removed the entire list of companies which are entirely sourced from secondary sources! Wow... someone doesn't know what Wikipedia:Original Research means. Yup, Wikipedia has definitely become a lot more stupid since I was here several years ago... - Letsbefiends (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Funny how I cited this list compiled by The Australian: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2015/10/30/1227588/903283-aus-news-file-life-in-the-fast-lane.pdf because clearly having dozens of shell companies is so trivial that it's unimportant that ASIC is investigating the structure. No, nothing suspicious about 20 proprietary companies with Mehajer shifting his directorship around at all!

And hey, nobody has ever in their lifetime found it useful to have an ABN or ACN to find more info,about a company's structure. Trivia! Silly ASIC, requiring an ACN for a registered company. Clearly, they have no idea what they are doing.

Curious though, as an expert on this topic, which companies are too trivial not to mention? I mean, you've done the hard yards of research, right? Or have you? I mean, researching and gathering information, well that's gotta be obsessive. Heavens to Betsy, imagine what would happen if I went to a... gasp! Library. I'm not sure I could handle the stress! - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A variety of issues...

Extended content

It appears that there are a variety of issues that may need to be discussed on this talk page. To centralise discussion, I'm going to list them here, under subheadings. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Speedy deletion The current version of this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. While I understand that some people think that Salim Mehajer is only notable because he is famous for being famous, in fact he is notable for a variety of things, not just his wedding and his position as deputy Mayor. He has had a very chequered history, and been in front of the courts a number of times, has been involved in property transactions that are controversial and notable in their own right, and has done a variety of things that have caused him to appear in the Australian media on a regular basis. He is currently under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for electoral fraud. Basically, he is indeed notable. I think it's important that those who add speedy deletion tags follow the rules around this. Under WP:A7 if it appears that if the subject may well be considered notable, but you disagree, then you need to list the article on WP:AFD. In particular, it states that "If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines." It is also important to note that the fact that an article isn't written well is not a criteria to determine that the subject is not notable. Per WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. It is, to my mind, very much not the case here. The subject of this article, Salem Mehajer, has been extensively covered in the Australian media for many things. Also, at the time that the CSD was added I think it was very clear that I was editing the article, because I was asking on this talk page what people thought of my bit on the coverage of his wedding. I asked this question on the 9th May, but on the 10th May it was listed under A7 for speedy deletion. I would appreciate it if those who add tags to the page follow the guidelines and rules, and I would really urge them not to request speedy deletion of a page that is being actively worked on. Of course, I have no problem whatsoever of it being listed on WP:AFD, that's well within the guidelines, but I would also ask them to consider that the subject is actually inherently notable under notability criteria! It doesn't help to add a notability maintenance tag to the article, which I have since removed. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) No response. How interesting. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Date format WP:MOSNUM applies to this article. I started this article and the date format I have used is Month Day, Year. This has been repeatedly changed. It's very disruptive when you try to contribute to this article but you find that changes are being done that don't really add any value. Also, as per MOSFORMAT, the guideline is "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." So... given I started the article and all the references use my format consistently throughout the article. the date format should be Month Day, Year. I would appreciate it if this could remain for consistency, and I really don't want someone to go through all the references and change them because honestly, what will you have achieved other than an edit conflict with someone who is trying to make substantial updates to this article? That is simply not true. Your first edit uses three DMY dates and only one MDY date. So you are the one changing majority format after the article was started. WWGB (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC) What am I meant to be looking at here? That's a diff that covers hundreds of edits, not all mine... I hadn't been using that format, so please don't say otherwise. Unless you have a diff to a single edit, of course. Which you won't be able to find... All a moot point though, I have now converted them to the date format requested by a number of people. Letsbefiends (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC) You mean I will not be able to find this edit, where you used DMY format? WWGB (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC) You had that page blanked and deleted as an attack page. It looks like it has been accidentally restored. I started again from scratch, so could you show me the diff starting from this point? - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC) You restored it. Your edit. Point made. WWGB (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure why you say that, because I'm not an admin so I never restored it. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Furthermore, according to this edit summary (which reads "Undid revision 719836351 by Letsbefiends (talk) again, read WP:MOSNUM, all dates in Australian English are written day month year") Australian dates should be day month year. I have reviewed this guideline and nowhere in the guideline does it say this. The only thing is mentions about Australian English is a brief mention in currency, where it quite sensibly suggests using the dollars symbol for Australian currency... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbefiends (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Per MOS:DATETIES, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is, for example, July 4, 1976; for most other nations it is, for example, 4 July 1976". If you check articles about Australian topics, or Australian biographies, you will see that <day month year> is by far the most commonly used format, as it will surely be for Salim Mehajer. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Except that this is not necessarily the case in Australia. In fact, if you look at most news organisations they use <Month Day, Year>. Regardless, the firm rule is really not to change the date format on the article unless absolutely necessary. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I am not interested in news organisations, I am referring to Wikipedia articles. And change IS necessary, because Australian WP articles are written in DMY format. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC) It's not mandated anywhere, despite what you say. It's very much unnecessary. It is not necessarily the date format used across Australia! - Letsbefiends (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC) WWGB is quite right. I quote our own article: "MDY is sometimes, but very rarely, seen in reference to estabished US culture, for instance the September 11 World Trade Centre attacks are still referred as "9/11", not "11/9"". See also here. This should be fairly obvious from the fact that we write dates 12/05/16. Furthermore it is mandated on Wikipedia: firstly MOS:STRONGNAT overrides MOS:RETAIN, and MOS:DATETIES seals the deal. Even if this wasn't the case, good luck trying to get consensus for m/d/y here. Frickeg (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) That's very different. dd/mm/yyyy is different to <Month name> dd, yyyy. But if you want to switch it all over, OK I'll bow to consensus. - Letsbefiends (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Switched over, I hope this is the correct format. - Letsbefiends (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) BLP violations There are a number of allegations of violations of BLP. The first has been made in this edit. I quoted from the court report, which was secondarily quoted accurately by ABC News. The quotes were, in my view, important to establish context as to why the AVO was taken out against Mehajer. I also made it very clear that Mehajer denied saying this, and also quoted him to ensure that balanced coverage was given. This was removed, with the justification that it is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. However, that is fairly clear that it only applies to private individuals and not public figures. Mehajer is very much a public figure. Now of course, we must take care not to give the allegations undue prominence, but in this case it is important (in my view) to quote directly from what was alleged (and the rebuttal) because it gives necessary context to the court case. I think it's important to note that in fact the magistrate did not actually discount that what Bruce Herat alleged Mehajer said was false, he merely said he could not prove that it was said in a threatening manner. It's interesting that he noted that if the camera in the council car park wasn't broken he believes he might have made a different judgement, and it's even more instructive that he not only maintained the AVO against Mehajer but extended it for a further 12 months. So I think it's for the best that we leave this information in the article. Now WWGB has stated that the way this should be resolved is that "Per WP:BLP, you boldly add it, I revert it and then it is discussed here for a time. If no other editors are concerned after, say, one week then my concerns are unsupported". That's not necessarily a dreadful procedure, but I think it's a bit unreasonable to have to wait for an entire week for other editors to show up (or not show up, as the case may be) before this can be settled. After all, if nobody turns up then it doesn't indicate anything other than nobody turned up to say anything one way or another! Especially as the policy seems fairly clear to me that the justification used to remove the material is WP:BLPCRIME, which specifically speaks only of non-public figures and thus doesn't apply in this instance! It is simply one person's word against another. If I say you are a lying, alcoholic dog-beater (just kidding!) and you say you are not, should my allegations be published anyway, despite there being no independent confirmation? Privacy and decency considerations should be enough to avoid tarnishing an individual's reputation for something which remains unconfirmed. The fact the the claim was aired in court is not sufficient to say "publish and be damned" in the face of conflicting recollections. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Except that it doesn't tarnish him. it was what was claimed, and if it was stated in any other way then I don't think it would give accurate context to the reason he was in court. Can I clarify though: are you saying that the allegations should not be stated in any way, shape or form? - Letsbefiends (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC) The second BLP issue was that this edit was necessary to remove the names of the two ladies. Now my understanding is that the two women were noted in all the news articles I can find, and their identity was never intentionally concealed. I put the names back again, but on consideration I've taken them out to ask on here to solicit opinion - I think it's helpful to list them as the information was widely reported in the media, but others may disagree. However, I'll keep the names out unless someone else agrees with putting them back in to give greater context. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Settlement According to this edit, "it was a matter for the insurers to reach a settlement, not Mehajer". However, where is the source that said that the NRMA negotiated the settlement? If a source can be found that this is what occured, then fine - let's update the article. But I can't find anything that says this is what is occurred and to say that the NRMA negotiated this could be completely inaccurate and not fair to the NRMA. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Controversial figure I acknowledge Salem Mehajer is a controversial figure, however he is indeed a notable one. It's unfortunate that he has so many negative stories about him, but just because someone has negative things written about them doesn't mean they are untrue, or even that documenting them on Wikipedia is unbalanced. There are plenty of figures that have done a lot of negative things and we have documented them. I believe we can do the same with Salim, but I think it's important that we not only are neutral and balanced but that we are accurate, provide context and give a reasonably complete overview of his life and include all significant events that can be verified from reliable sources. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Companies associated with Salim Mehajer

I notice that the section on companies associated with Salim Mehajer has been tagged as a directory listing. However, WP:NOTDIR gives the following criteria for a directory:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)
2. Genealogical entries.
3. The White or Yellow Pages.
4. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.
5. Sales catalogues.
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations,
7. Simple listings

It is none of these things, and shows the enormous number of companies he has been a director, secretary or had a joint venture or partnership with. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The ABNs and ACNs are rather important because they show that they are all listed Pty Ltd companies and allow the editor to check out the companies for themselves. The ACN and ABN of a company is most definitely not minutiae, especially as a number of companies have such similar names. It also allows the reader to view the status of the companies - I find it very useful as it shows that a number of companies have been liquidated, or have had the directorship changed. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It has now been readded, but my concerns have not been addressed. This is not a violation of the guideline! - Letsbefiends (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@WWGB and The Drover's Wife: are either of you going to respond to this? The Drover's Wife in particular - this was indeed being discussed before you just removed it all. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting how I waited a full day for a response, none was given, I put it back and then it was discussed. It's not like these two weren't notified, I pinged them. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Extended content

It is time to bring further eyes to review this article. I have several concerns that cannot be resolved with the contributing editor. (1) the inclusion of alleged offensive and intimidating language which was denied by the subject, unsubstantiated and dismissed by a court. (2) the inclusion of very minor traffic offences, such as an illegal U-turn, which appear to breach BLP considerations. (3) a highly detailed list, including ABN and ACN, of every company with which the subject has been associated. I acknowledge that the subject has had a colorful and contentious past, however, much detail in the article seems trivial and muck-raking. Comments? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC) I am very happy if others wish to review this article :-) What in particular is muck-raking about it though? Could you be more specific? I don't see that his traffic offences are a violation of BLP in any way, because it was something that has been widely commented on in the media because of the sheer number of traffic violations he has been involved in. I also don't know what the issue is with that list. One of the issues that Mehajer is noted for is the sheer number of proprietary companies and proprietary shell companies he has established or been involved in. It's actually very useful to have the ABN and ACN. I have noted why I think it's important and relevant, and not getting in minutiae on the talk page here. WWGB hasn't responded to my substantive points, and in the following edit readded the tag with the comment "please do not remove MY tag until the concern has been addressed" - yet in fact I already had. I am getting rather concerned with the editing practices of WWGB however. So far he has done the following on this article: Requested it be speedily deleted under A7, [8] but never notified me of this fact. When I noted that this seemed unfair, he stated "I used the automated csd process at the top of the page, which is supposed to notify the creator. Not my problem if it does not work properly." [9] As I explained, I nominate hundreds of articles for speedy deletion and rely on Wikipedia tools to work effectively. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Which does not in any way help me when I tried to work out what had happened to that article. The tools have limitations, so I would have thought you'd have learned to follow the guideline without recourse to blaming the tools. As I have said before, if you are doing this with hundreds of articles, then I respectfully suggest you review the way you are notifying people. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Accused me of deliberately updating the wrong article spelling, even though I had nothing to do with the location of the article which was moved by another editor [10] Although the edit history of Selim Mehajer is lost in multiple redirects, the fact remains that I asked you to edit the article Salim Mehajer and not Selim Mehajer which you did for some time. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) By the time you had instructed me to do this (why are you instructing me?) I had already started to edit the other article because it had been moved with the comment in the history that it was a spelling error to use Salim. The correct procedure was to move the article, which you did not do. In fact, it was *I* who then followed the procedure to request that an admin move the article to the correct spelling. Why didn't you do that? And why were you so aggressive in your initial comment? You accused me of not editing in good faith! - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Redirected the article he felt I should be editing to City_of_Auburn#History [11] Because the article Salim Mehajer was redirected from Auburn Council to Selim Mehajer, clearly a misspelling of his name. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Yes, and as I stated on your talk page you should have redirected it to the Selim Mehajer article. Then a move could have been done that fixed the redirects. Which is what happened. Instead you opted to revert the change. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) After removing the CSD tag added the {{notability}} tag to the article, however I suggested he take this to AFD if he was truly concerned it was not something that is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. [12] I offered to list it myself, but he never responded. You did not require my assent to list an article at AfD. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) And you did not need to add the notability tag if you felt that notability was such a problem that the article should not exist on Wikipedia. Instead, it would have been more appropriate to list it on AFD. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Has so far stated that I have violated BLP through WP:BLPCRIME, however when I asked how the policy applied because Mehajer is a public figure and that policy specific states it applies to non-public figures he didn't respond, only stated that he thinks that I should wait a week and then if nobody supports him then I can add the material back (see Talk:Salim Mehajer#Court case). I don't think that's how BLP policy is meant to work somehow. But he hasn't answered how there is a BLP violation in this case. My edit did not rely on BLPCRIME, merely BLP considerations. That is one of the reasons I have brought this matter to RfC. Obscene and threatening words are being attributed to Mehajer, despite his denial, no witnesses and a dismissed court case. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) You specifically mentioned BLPCRIME, in fact it was your central point. Here is what you wrote: "Herat claimed it happened, Mehajer denied it. There is no independent corroboration. Charges were dismissed. WP:BLPCRIME applies here to protect the reputation of the subject who was found to have done nothing wrong." You still haven't explained how it is a violation of BLP. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Added his own POV that Mehajer is merely known for "Lavish wedding" in the infobox [13]. I did not say "merely", I added the matter that first brought him to public attention. Others can add more. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) And yet he is the deputy mayor of a large LGA. How was it that you neglected to mention this? - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Has removed useful information, such as the name of the street in which Mehajer ran over the two pedestrians [14] And I still wonder how naming a non-notable street adds anything to the article ..... WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Because it gives context as to where the accident occurred, you can examine the area in which he crashed and work out for yourself how dangerous an area it was, assess whether the judge was correct in that he should have been able to avoid the crash. Etc. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Added incorrect information [15] and has committed his own BLP violation by stating that Mehajer never completed high school in NSW when in fact there was clear evidence he did, [16] and claimed he hadn't completed any degrees, when he has (and can be checked on the WSU verification service and is noted in The Australian article I had linked to).[17] It is a fact that Mehajer never finished high school, but it relies on primary evidence that cannot be published here. The source IS wrong, but cannot be rebutted. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Yet as an editor who has over 98,000 edits under your belt, you knew that already and yet you violated the policy fully knowing that your edit was violating it. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Has added a tag that asserts that the list of companies that Mehajer was associated with is a directory, [18] but when I pointed out the guideline it links to doesn't seem to apply he just added the tag back again with no comment on the talk page [19]. I expressed concern that a long list of companies breaches WP:NOTDIR. Of course you would not agree because you wrote it. So you removed the tag. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) And yet on this very talk page I explained why I don't think it's a problem. I have given my reasons and you haven't responded, and I am saying it doesn't violate that guideline. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Appears to be canvassing - WWGB certainly didn't notify me that this article was being discussed and I am the one who has been updating it! [20]. I did not invite discussion at AWNB, I just asked others to look at the article. Of course, you already knew about the article, as you wrote most of it. So why would I need to invite you personally to look at it? WWGB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC) You didn't ask this as part of the RFC, you said that there were BLP violations being made. As I was the only editor really editing this article, you were indeed referring to myself. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) I've seen some really great edits done by WWGB, and in fact I've hit the thank you button on a lot of them, but it's frustrating that because it appears to me that as he doesn't think Salim Mehajer is a notable figure and is merely "famous for being famous" seems to be editing in what looks to me to be an obstructive manner. I realise I may be wrong, but given all the things I point out here it does make it rather difficult to update... For instance, I have asked for comment on this talk page, but aside from the date formats (which I have acceded to and apologised for going against consensus, and in fact I converted over to the format he requested...) I don't see much of a response so far. - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC) How funny! I ask for comment on the article and get a very personal critique. After 98,000 edits nothing at Wikipedia surprises me any more. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) WWGB, there is nothing personal about this. As I say, I think you do excellent work. But you haven't responded to my substantive points and seem to have been adding contentious tags to the article over a reasonable period. And to my mind, it does look like canvassing when you post to the Australian Noticeboard alleging BLP violations and not notifying me of this fact. After all, you and I know that I am the primary author of this article so far, and the things you are complaining about has to do with material I have contributed! FWIW incidentally, I'm not an inexperienced editor here either. I know pretty much everything you do about Wikipedia, though I may be a little rusty on a few things like date formats. - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Responding to RFC There is an RFC listed for this article, but I see no clearly established RFC section on this page. I am copying the RFC text here, and then responding below. Fieari (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC) It is time to bring further eyes to review this article. I have several concerns that cannot be resolved with the contributing editor. the inclusion of alleged offensive and intimidating language which was denied by the subject, unsubstantiated and dismissed by a court. the inclusion of very minor traffic offences, such as an illegal U-turn, which appear to breach BLP considerations. a highly detailed list, including ABN and ACN, of every company with which the subject has been associated. I acknowledge that the subject has had a colorful and contentious past, however, much detail in the article seems trivial and muck-raking. Comments? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Okay, with this in place, I admit to finding the issue... confusing. My primary confusion stems from the fact that it is not clear to me what, in particular, is the main interest in this person. The lead gives only a bare minimum of information-- paraphrased, "$NAME is a person. He does a job." with no other details. Why is he encyclopedic? What is the focus of his life that is of interest to the greater population? Once this question is answered, then and ONLY then will I be able to comment on whether or not any given particular details are worthy of being included. Until then, the whole article is an enigma to me. Fieari (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC) He's one of those people who's essentially just known for being controversial: though he's a (now-former) suburban deputy mayor, there are, bizarrely, more reliable sources about him than the mayors of Sydney and Brisbane combined (with over six million people). He came to public attention with the lavish road-closing wedding and since then the media just reports everything. He absolutely flies past any general notability guideline in much the same way Kim Kardashian does even though it isn't like he's notable for substantively very much. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC) @The Drover's Wife: Funny how you keep saying that when he's being investigated by the AFP for electoral fraud, has COI decisions that all up could have netted him over $30 million dollars, nearly killed two women, has been in court more times than you can shake a stick at, is being or has has been investigated by the ATO and ASIC over his business practices, and has made a name for himself for his activities. I mean, multiple news sources all over the country are just interested in him because if a dodgy road closure and extravagant wedding. Funny, I seem to recall a similar line about "famous for being famous, like a Kardashian" being spouted by WWGB. But let's see you remove this comment, because we can't have these POV-warriors in Sydney causing damage to articles about notorious Australian identities! Quick, block this IP address before I comment further! I suggest WWGB immediately contain the fallout by collapsing this discussion. Including an account of the traffic offences seems fair enough; coverage was prominent. I agree that the original long write-up unbalanced the biography somewhat, but there should be some account of this, using the best sources. As for companies, include those mentioned in secondary sources and leave out those that can only be referenced to primary sources. Andreas JN466 09:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Agreed about the traffic offences as long as it sticks to the basic facts - as I had said before, it needs to be reduced to about a quarter of what it was. I disagree about the companies, though - the only reason there is any secondary source coverage is because one newspaper took the time to try to track down all of the companies he's a director of. These companies have no notability whatsoever and you couldn't find secondary source coverage beyond "it exists and is linked to Salim Mehajer" for any of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC) what about these then? Klan, Anthony (19 March 2016). "Salim Mehajer eyes $7m property sale jackpot". The Australian. & Whitbourn, Michaela (10 August 2015). "Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer faces tribunal over alleged breach of pecuniary interest laws". The Sydney Morning Herald. & Herald}} & Whitbourn, Michaela (29 January 2016). "Salim Mehajer suspended for voting without disclosure, adding $1m to property's value". The Sydney Morning Herald. Mehajer Brothers purchased 3 Mary St, Mehajer was the director and never disclosed a conflict of interest, and profited from a $7 million windfall, which got him and the council suspended. That's Fairfax AND Newscorp reporting on this. Because, you know, bias and all. Supreme Court overturns decision but in a stunning bit of biased reporting by the SMH in that last article they reported that "Mr Patten said the councillor's explanation that he did not believe he had to disclose the property because he did not intend to redevelop it "stretches credulity". Nevertheless, Cr Mehajer was "not challenged upon it and I accept it at face value"." Dammit, the Herald has been infected by News Corp muck raking! Oh the humanity! What an agenda! Robertson, James (18 February 2016). "Salim Mehajer defiant after Auburn council decisions overturned". The Sydney Morning Herald. & Thomson, Warren (18 February 2016). "Administrator blocks Salim Mehajer's purchase of an Auburn Council carpark in Lidcombe". Parramatta Advertiser. & "Auburn Council administrator reverses decisions set to benefit Salim Mehajer". ABC News. 18 February 2016. 13 John St approval was overturned due to conflict of interest, and Sydney Buikding and Constructions was used. Would have netted Mehajer over $10 million. That's multiple reliable secondary sources. Read 'em and weep. Silmalis, Linda (22 August 2015). "How deputy mayor Salim Mehajer and mayor Ronney Oueik struck property gold in Auburn". The Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Details the fact that 40-44 John St had number of stories increased to 12 after Mehajetr helper approve changes to the local environmental plan (LEP) without disclosing conflict of interest, and it was Mehajer's company Sydney Project Group that was the applicant. Also notes Mehajer "Receives income from S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd, Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd, A-Link Technology Pty Ltd, Sydney Constructions & Developments Pty Ltd, Mehajer Bros Pty Ltd, Downtown Project Developments" McKenny, Leesha; Whitbourn, Michaela (27 October 2015). "Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer's 'right hand man' admits forging documents". The Sydney Morning Herald. former employee of Mehajer's company SM Projects Pty Ltd admits to forging documents to prevent company from going into liquidation. Company is investigated by the ATO, wound up and criminal proceedings started. Mehajer is the director. Robertson, James (18 April 2016). "Salim Mehajer company fights wind-up move". The Brisbane Times. Fairfax paper reports that at least 6 of of Mehajer's companies were guarantors for a huge loan to Reynold's Private Wealth, and Reynold's applied to wind up Sydney Constructions and Developments, and other companies had an adverse credit report lodged against them by Reynold's - a serious move with large penalties if the claims are proven wrong. And in yet another stunning but if bias, evidently somehow caught from News Corp, this Fairfax Media article states that "The sense of impending crisis around Salim Mehajer's empire deepened on Monday, with a lender making the first moves toward winding up a string of family companies.". Goodness, the trivia! And the original research from a reliable secondary source! It's a scandal how these investigative pieces are so biased these days. But please, do go on @The Drover's Wife: because I know that you'll revert this edit for Great Justice, or strike out against the great POV-warriors besmirching Mehajer.

Incorporation of material while addressing WP:UNDUE

Extended content

I have tried to address the WP:UNDUE concerns while simultaneously incorporating notable material. Here is a summary of my edit: Automobile incidents - Way too much detail. Main points to note are the conviction for incident in 2012, overturning and civil suit. I have cut down the description of the case to the bare bones. This is together with a short statement that he has a long history of driving offences and fines. Sources can perhaps be improved. I loathe using the Daily Mail. The company stuff. I have removed all the company names - while concentrating on the main point of allegations of conflict of interest. I have added a few more sources. Feel free to edit/revert/discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Generally fine with me, however, I have removed mentions of the more trivial offences like U-turns and mobile phones. I doubt that the tabloid source is correct in calling them convictions as there is no evidence they were dealt with in court. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) The point I wanted to make was a pattern of various driving offences - though individual ones may be trivial. I agree that the Daily Mail is not a good source, as I said above. If someone finds a better source, they can be included. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Actually, Wikipedia policy makes clear that trivial offences do not belong in articles at all. Period. Collect (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) That is begging the question. Of course if it's trivial, it doesn't belong in the article. The relevant question is whether reliable sources mention the alleged long-term pattern of driving offences. For what it's worth, this Independent article also mentions "22 alleged driving offences". They don't cite their source explicitly, but I suspect it's the Daily Mail, so I am not adding it yet to the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC) In general, I'm not sure that we should be mentioning "alleged" stuff at all, although AFAIK he has paid the fines and accepted responsibility. I think we're in agreement that listing them all out is excessive, and I'm not sure that even mentioning them in aggregate is useful. Yes, we could cite it, but lots of people have stuffed up behind the wheel and gotten tickets. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC). Just be careful not to increase the number of characters in the wiki markup too much. Apparently you can be reverted for increasing the characters from 14,987 to 34,195 characters. I recommend the best way of ensuring you keep the limit you mininum is to ensure you don't add any references to ensure that the limit only increases to 20,232 characters. Because apparently the new way of combatting undue weight is to make it known [citation not needed]. Funny conflicting rules these. One day I'm sure I'll grow smart enough to hold them in my head. But watch out there Lankiveil, your status as ArbCom clerk and overall well known and respected Wikipedian won't mean much if you submit too many characters into Wikipedia. You don't want to tax the servers unduly, after all.

Associated companies - readded material

Extended content

The "Associated Companies" section was removed here with the comment that "this whole section is absolute WP:OR". That editor The Drover's Wife then stated the following with their reasoning: Equally, the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason. There is nothing that is accurate about this comment: The companies are not notable: All the companies are notable! He has got so many shell companies and that has indeed been an area of interest in the media. The author (me) has had to refer to business registration records as a source: every single company referenced has a valid secondary source. Whilst it's true I purchased a few company extracts, it was to verify that I had the correct company because there are a few companies with incredibly similar names. I have referenced the purchased extract for those companies where I purchased the information from ASIC. It is an "attrocious (sic) case of original research": it is not. Let's review what is meant by "original research". The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Every one of the companies has a reliable, published source. None of it is a synthesis of data - the fact is that each source for every citation says that Mehajer is associated with the company "These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason." Wrong. The following companies are all listed by The Australian in their article "Life in the Fast Lane": SM Engineering & Construction Pty Ltd SM Engineering & Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd SM Engineering & Construction Services Pty Ltd Sydney Constructions & Developments Pty Ltd Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd Mehajer Bros Pty Ltd Skypoint Towers Pty Ltd Mehajer Law Group Pty Ltd Mehajer Bros Auto Pty Ltd Mehajer Consolidated Pty Ltd Mehajer Holdings Pty Ltd Sydney Building Constructions Pty Ltd Sydney Building Developments Pty Ltd Oz Buildings & Constructions Pty Ltd All the rest have valid citations to articles in the SMH, The Australian or other reliable sources. So it was very wrong to remove this material. It's not trivial, and it is very well sourced. It would be helpful if The Drover's Wife could have looked at the sources. They would have seen that a. the material is not original research, b. it's not considered trivial by a lot of people that he has a lot of companies (especially by the media!), and c. In fact, in the "tens of thousands of articles" about Mehajer in fact The Australian did exactly what you say they did not - they compiled a list of his companies. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "No, nothing suspicious about 20 proprietary companies with Mehajer shifting his directorship around at all!" Not necessarily, no. If you want to cite reliable sources discussing this issue, by all means! It's not notable because you want to make a point on your own, though. Wikipedia doesn't care if you think something is suspicious, it needs to be discussed in reliable sources, especially on a WP:BLP article. The convictions are a similar story - if you want to mention them in a way that isn't undue weight, by all means. However, the obsessive detail of every car accident he's ever had is a rampant violation of WP:BLP. "Now would you consider that perhaps the law has let us down? Do you think that maybe the automobile incidents are actually fairly important to have documented? Would you consider it "obsessive" to have spent about 10 minutes reading a number of news articles and then documenting the fact that this politician seems to literally get away with what you or I could never get away with?" Again, Wikipedia is not the place for this. If reliable sources discuss this point, by all means! However, if you are making the point, it does not go on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC) @The Drover's Wife: I note, with interest, a few things: You didn't actually address my points, It would be a lot more convincing if you just removed the stuff you think makes the article unbalanced, and What you are quoting is not in the text of this article. Of course I can have a private opinion outside of Wikipedia. But within Wikipedia article space I have in fact cited reliable sources that document what he has done. Does this mean that if I was to say "The Daily Telegraph" reported that such and such occurred this would be acceptable? Because I did that in the past and was told that it was an attack. The funny thing is, you've asserted that I'm obsessive, but you haven't actually proven it. The information you keep removing is well referenced and verifiable. But of course you keep taking out the material about Mehajer running over two women, who later sued and settled for over $1.35 million. Why have you removed that? Is it your opinion that it's not significant? Or what about the fact that he was charged and found guilty of driving an unregistered vehicle, but got off on a section 10? Do you even know the significance of a section 10 in NSW? You see, I've only documented what he has done. I haven't provided any commentary within the article. It seems you can't see the difference between the two - I can express a view on a medium outside of Wikipedia. That's not a view expressed in the article though, and it's a dirty lie if you say otherwise. I don't think I'm giving undue weight to the charges - unless you are saying that we should cover up material facts about Mehajer's actions? You see, from where I'm standing it looks very much to me like you are attempting to defend his actions. He needs neither attack nor defense though. We just need to document what he has done. And that is not a violation of writing about a living person. In fact, I haven't documented every car accident he's ever had. I document one car accident, one in which two women were severely injured, that was written about extensively in multiple publications, and in which he put out a half a page advert stating he was vindicated when in fact he was not. What other car accident are you referring to? You imply I wrote about many, when I have not. Questions: I would therefore appreciate an answer to the following before you remove all the section again: You just made a fairly serious accusation against me. You wrote "However, the obsessive detail of every car accident he's ever had is a rampant violation of WP:BLP". Could you detail the multiple car accidents you think I've written about? I only wrote about one, and it was a major accident that put two women in hospital. But you have accused me yet again of being obsessive, so I think it's important that you justify that assertion. Where have I expressed my personal view in the article? What specific bits are not important? Road rage paragraph: On 8 February 2008 Mehajer was involved in an incidence of road rage. Mehajer alleges he was travelling in John St, Lidcombe when another driver started beeping and sticking his middle finger up at him, apparently due to his work ute's low speed. The other motorist claimed that he was confronted when he merged into the same lane as Mehajer. The driver alleges that Mehajer got out of his ute when he stopped at a stop sign, yelled abuse towards him and started hitting the roof of his Toyota Corolla. The motorist then says he drove off but was followed by Mehajer and when they again stopped at a set of traffic lights Mehajer got out of his ute, yelled, punched and kicked his car. In a police statement, later tendered to court, Mehajer admitted to yelling at the other motorist and punching his car, however he claimed he was provoked when the motorist poked him with an umbrella. Mehajer was charged by police with maliciously damaging the other motorists car, assault and dangerous driving. The charges were heard at Bankstown Local Court in July 2008, where he pleaded not guilty to all three charges. He was found guilty of the malicious damage charge, but the charges of dangerous driving and assault were dismissed. He was sentenced to a one-year good behaviour bond and the conviction was not recorded. Referenced by: McClellan, Ben (2 September 2015). "Salim Mehajer allegedly confronted a man during a 2008 traffic incident". The Daily Telegraph. How is this not important? He was in fact found guilty of malicious damage and got a good behaviour bond. Where do you feel I am pushing my own POV? What is not factually correct about this? Paragraph detailing the running over of two women and putting them in hospital: Mehajer was involved in a serious car crash on 17 January 2012 when he lost control of his Ferrari 612 Scaglietti at the crest of The Boulevarde in Lidcombe and ran over two women before colliding with a wall. The two women were rushed to Westmead Hospital where they underwent surgery for serious leg and pelvic injuries. They were released from hospital after spending a month in recovery. (Cuneo, Clementine (18 January 2012). "Salim Mehajer says women's lives are more important than his Ferrari". The Daily Telegraph. & Bibby, Paul (23 October 2012). "Deputy mayor who crashed Ferrari sentenced to community service". The Sydney Morning Herald. & Dale, Amy (23 October 2012). "Brakes put on spinning Ferrari driver". The Australian.) Mehajer was convicted of negligent driving on 23 October 2012 at Burwood Local Court where he had his license disqualified and was sentenced to 150 hours of community service by magistrate Brian Maloney. The magistrate noted that Mehajer's statement to police differed from his testimony in court but that Mehajer had not been speeding or driving in a reckless manner. Instead, the magistrate found that Mehajer's inability to control such a powerful car caused him to "[make] bad choices and it ended in catastrophe".[name="negligentdriving_initial_conviction_smh" & ref name="lidcombe_crash_theaustralian"] Mehajer appealed and in September 2013 the conviction was overturned. ("Deputy Mayor Salim Mehajer has had negligent driving charges against him dismissed on appeal". Auburn Review. 9 September 2013.) After his acquital, Mehajer took out an advertisement in the local newspaper The Auburn Review headed "VICTORY over negligent driving" and which declared that "Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is for it. It's every man's business to see justice done." ("VICTORY over negligent driving". The Auburn Review (Advertisement). 15 October 2013. p. 10. Archived from the original on 2014-03-22. & "Salim Mehajer's VICTORY over negligent driving (backstory in comments)". reddit.com. Reddit. 16 August 2015. Retrieved 2016-05-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)). The two injured women later sued him in 2014 and Mehajer reached a settlement with them in early October 2015, agreeing to pay AUD$1.72 million which was paid by his insurers, NRMA. ("Women hit by Salim Mehajer's Ferrari settle case for $1.72 million". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2016-05-11. & Eddie, Rachel (7 November 2015). "Two women injured when controversial deputy mayor Salim Mehajer crashed his Ferrari settle their claim for $1.72 million". The Daily Mail.). What, specifically, do you have an issue with in this paragraph? Where do you feel you I am pushing my own POV? What is not factually correct about this? You accused me of being obsessing over his car accidents, what part of this do you feel is obsessive? Paragraph about traffic offenses: Mehajer has had numerous convictions for traffic offences. His list of conviction include: using a mobile phone whilst driving, performing an illegal burn out, driving whilst viewing a distracting Visual Display Unit, running a red light, disobeying a stop sign, performing an illegal U-turn, breaking the speed limit on five seperate occasions and driving his car on the wrong side of the road on one occasion. On another occasion he drove without showing his P plate correctly and refused to show his driver's license. Mehajer had his driver's license suspended in March 2010, which he attempted to appeal but was unsuccessful. He was charged with negligent driving in 2012, but this was dismissed on 26 October 2012 in Parramatta Local Court. (Fife-Yeomans, Janet; Benns, Matthew (21 August 2015). "Salim Mehajer: Inside the Auburn deputy mayor's dark past and police rap sheet". The Daily Telegraph. & Carney, John; Peters, Daniel (21 August 2015). "Speeding offences, burnouts and possessing a police uniform: The long criminal record of sportscar-loving Salim Mehajer before he became deputy mayor and hosted THAT wedding… but he has never served jail time". The Daily Mail.) Why don't you consider these significant? Mehajer is an elected official, so these traffic offenders were all reported on - it's not like I'm making this up. While it doesn't make him look good, he has indeed had these convictions. Why don't you think they are important? If you don't think they are important, do you think they are all unimportant, or just some of them? If just some of them, what ones aren't important? Paragraph about police wrongly serving defect notice to Aysha Mehajer: Mehajer's wife Aysha was served a defect notice for a supposed exhaust system issue coming from his Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG 6x6, mainly because the police believed a side exhaust did not comply with Australian standards. Mehajer claims the car was brand new, and that the police cancelled the car's registration and forced Aysha to walk home. (Butler, Josh (8 October 2015). "Salim Mehajer's New Mercedes Defected For Exhaust Problem". The Huffington Post.) Mercedes Benz sent a letter to Mehajer that refuted the claims that the exhaust violated the standards (Arlington, Kim (26 October 2015). "Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer hits out at police over Ferrari charges". The Sydney Morning Herald.) and he prepared to challenge the infringement notice, (Whitbourn, Michaela (20 January 2016). "Salim Mehajer's wife Aysha to face court over 'non-compliant' Mercedes". The Sydney Morning Herald.) but police dropped the matter before it could go before the court. (Benny-Morrison, Ava (9 February 2016). "NSW Police drop case against Aysha Mehajer over non-compliant Mercedes". The Sydney Morning Herald.). As you can see, Mehajer claimed he had been targeted by the police and his wife humiliated. In fact, it looks like either they did target him, or made a very foolish mistake as he was backed up by Mercedes Benz in a letter, and the police in fact dropped the charges. So... Why don't you think it's important to show that this occurred? Given this is a serious allegation that Mehajer levelled at police which may have had substance, what's not insignificant about it? What is inaccurate about what was written? What is not neutral about this paragraph? Paragraph about Mehajer driving unregistered Ferrari whilst not carrying license: On 24 October 2015, Mehajer was pulled over by police at 10:50pm after they noticed him erratically driving his Ferrari along Canterbury Road in Punchbowl. There it was discovered he was not carrying his license and the car was not registered. He was instructed by the police not to drive it any further but drove it anyway, and 25 minutes later was again pulled over by police who issued him with a field court attendance notice. Mehajer claimed on Facebook he was being targeted by police who were trying to "tarnish" his name, and implored them to "PLEASE go out there and target Real criminals and leave me alone". (Arlington, Kim (26 October 2015). "Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer hits out at police over Ferrari charges". The Sydney Morning Herald.) He appeared before Bankstown Local Court magistrate Michael Connell in January 2016 and was fined $200 for driving without a license, found guilty of driving an unregistered vehicle but was not convicted after the court granted him leave under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. (Barnsley, Warren; Farrow, Lauren (18 November 2015). "Triple trouble: Salim Mehajer's controversy in separate Sydney courts". Yahoo!7 News. & Whitbourn, Michaela (28 January 2016). "Salim Mehajer fined for driving without a license but gets reprieve over unregistered car".) Mehajer was absolutely convicted over this issue. He was found guilty, and it is significant that he used a section 10 pleading to not have the conviction recorded - and let off on another good behaviour bond. Given this: Why do you feel it's not important? How is it not written neutrally? What is factually incorrect? In the list of companies, which company is too trivial to list? Which company is not cited correctly? The section you removed states the following: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is reportedly conducting a review of the companies. (Klan, Anthony (29 October 2015). "$1m company tax debt puts Salim Mehajer on notice". The Australian. & Klan, Anthony (30 October 2015). "Tax bill rises amid Salim Mehajer business ruins". The Australian.) How is this inaccurate? Why do you feel it is not important? I believe each of the companies has a reliable source. Do you not agree? If not, which companies are at issue? You stated "Equally, the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not belong in this article." Which do you consider non-notable? He has used each of the companies to transact significant business. Each of the businesses has been referenced with a reliable source, and I only purchased ASIC details on two of the companies to verify directorship. How is this original research? Could you please justify this comment, because you used the word "atrocious", which is quite a personal thing to say and I can only assume you mean I was doing it in bad faith. It's certainly insulting. It made me very upset, and was entirely unnecessary. In fact, you knew that because you used the words in a second edit! You said "These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason." - however, The Australian compiled a list similar to this one, which I have used as a reference - the list can be found in their article "Life In The Fast Lane". Given this, how can you justify your statement? My source directly contradicts you... A response to these questions would be appreciated. If you are going to accuse me of being obsessive, then I think it's only fair for me to challenge you on it. I don't think accusing someone of being obsessive is really assuming good faith - something I've been readily accused of and yet you seem to have escaped. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Again, if you want to cite the Daily Telegraph drawing a particular conclusion, go right ahead. If, on the other hand, you want to write the article in such a way as to try to make the reader draw particular conclusions, Wikipedia is not the place. Noting that he was found guilty of a crime and what the sentence was is perfectly appropriate for this article. The obsessive detail because, as you yourself stated, you're trying to make your own point about the gravity of the offence, is not. Please read WP:UNDUE because you don't appear to understand the concept. There is no reason why his wife being stopped for the exhaust system in her Mercedes belongs in Mehajer's biography. All the companies are too trivial to list: while you can verify that they exist and that Mehajer is a director, there is absolutely no notable sources about their operations. If there are sources to the claimed ASIC investigation, that is notable. If reliable sources have drawn conclusions about the amount of companies he has, again, by all means. This does not mean that you can use Wikipedia to make your own implications in this way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Could you answer all the questions? You have only responded to the following: Mehajer's wife being stopped - you have claimed that there are no good reasons to note it, yet I gave you a very good reason to include it - Mehajer claimed he was unfairly targetted by the police, and the police dropped the infringement notice after Mercedes Benz backed Mehajer You claim that there are no notable sources about the companies, yet I have provided sources. The fact that he owns them is significant. What he has done with them, well - I am yet to document what they were used for, given the fact that this article is currently being lopped down all the time by yourself, it's a bit hard to continue really. But have you read the sources I provided above? Because I've listed all the DAs used to purchase properties and I've also got a whole bit I need to document on the not-for-profit company he is running and is being struck off... You further make a claim I am attempting to make the reader draw certain conclusions. What conclusions do you think that I'm trying to get them to draw? Because I've only documented the bare facts really. You are now claiming I don't understand what it means to give something due weight, in order to be neutral. That's wrong, and yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Part of that policy is that undue weight is not given to unreliable sources or to minority views. Well, I haven't. But another aspect is that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Well, again, the issues raised are not unbalanced really. The offences he has committed are really quite serious, so they are written about. Again, are you saying that they shouldn't be written about at all? If so, then I don't see how you can justify that position, unless you think that the information is incorrect but in that case I welcome you to check my sources. So it appears you aren't actually reading the sources after all! You say " If there are sources to the claimed ASIC investigation, that is notable." How about the following: "The Mehajer family conducts property development operations via a string of ­interconnected companies that share directors and business ­addresses. Their activities have attracted the interest of the Australian Sec­urities & Investments Commission, which is believed to be conducting a review." That's from The Australian, in the article Tax bill rises amid Salim Mehajer business ruins. There you go - a quote from a reliable and verifiable source. Can't really give you much better than that! You've so far made some fairly serious allegations about the material I've included. But quite a bit of what you claim is inaccurate, so I'm asking where specifically the issues are so that where there are genuine problems, I can correct them. But so far, you haven't actually been able to substantiate what you are claiming! - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) This is a biography of Salim Mejaher. Referring to trivial things that happened to his wife - even trivial things he complained about - is completely out of place in this article. You claim that the fact that he owns them all is significant. If you can cite reliable sources placing significance upon that, by all means. You shouldn't ever be citing DAs on something like this (again, that's original research) - but if reliable sources are reporting on the DAs, again, by all means! Again, unless reliable sources have reported on the significance of the failing company, that doesn't go in either - because that's original research. You shouldn't ever be purchasing ASIC extracts for Wikipedia for the same reason. This is basic stuff. I've cited you about what you said on this very page about your approach to editing this article. As for trying to make the reader draw certain conclusions, I've quoted you directly about this: "No, nothing suspicious about 20 proprietary companies with Mehajer shifting his directorship around at all!" and "Because, you know, when the deputy mayor of a very large city in Sydney holds a list of driving convictions that include using a mobile phone whilst driving, performing an illegal burn out, driving whilst viewing a distracting Visual Display Unit, running a red light, disobeying a stop sign, performing an illegal U-turn, breaking the speed limit on five seperate occasions, driving his car on the wrong side of the road on one occasion, driving without showing his P plate correctly and then refusing to show his driver's license; call me crazy but I think that's fairly significant!" Again, I am not saying that the traffic offences shouldn't be referenced in the article (for about the fifth time), but that they need due weight. The present section is about five times too long and covers every single detail in the same depth that it was reported as news, which is wildly inappropriate for a biographical article. I have zero problem with you citing any of the conclusions reached about his company structure by The Australian. Go right ahead! That doesn't justify a gigantic list of non-notable companies - as you yourself stated, to demonstrate that you think it's intrinsically suspicious. I don't like the guy either, but Wikipedia's policies on undue weight, original research and biographies of living people don't not apply because you don't like someone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Summary of issues so far @The Drover's Wife: So let's reindent this. So far the contentious material is: His wife was pulled over for driving Salim Mehajer's car. She didn't own it. The police incorrectly said it was not compliant and forced her to walk home. Salim claims he was being targetted. This was reported in the SMH and a few other sources. Now you say that this is a "trivial" claim, but it is not. It is also not a BLP violation, but you keep removing it, claiming it is. So, stop removing it as a BLP violation? You quote me off page. You have now claimed that you "don't like the guy either". By which I take it to mean that you can now only write with a negative slant towards Mahajer? Of course not. So why do you claim that's what I'm doing? I am not. I have actually written quite neutrally, and there is no editorializing. The fact that you cannot answer even a fraction of the questions I've put to you is probably testament to that. It is, however, important that he has a network of companies. If the issue is that you want me to directly cite The Australian in the claim that he has a closely networked set of family owned companies, I'm happy to oblige. But that doesn't mean you can remove that list of companies - there are multiple sources who have commented on the companies, they are all footnoted so to say that I haven't referenced them is, once again, not true. So here we go: "You shouldn't ever be purchasing ASIC extracts for Wikipedia for the same reason. This is basic stuff." That "basic stuff" is a "basic misinterpretation" of the Primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy. I can purchase ASIC extracts in my own time. There is no rule that I can't cite them either. Here is the bit of the policy and what it actually states: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them So there you go, perfectly acceptable. All I've done is use them to verify that Salim Mehajer was at one time a director of the company. You surely cannot be suggesting that's a misuse of an ASIC company historical extract? That would be ridiculous. Do you actually bother to read the policies before you claim people are violating them? Because I guess I'm a bit sick of you misapplying policy to force me into positions that were never the intent of the original policy. The next time you decide to quote a policy, I think you'd better quote it to me in full. I won't be accepting any more shortcuts to the policy, because so far you've shown basic misunderandings over such fundamental policies as No Original Research. With regards to the traffic incidents, it's not undue weight to list the offenses in a sentence. One sentence of quite a few paragraphs. How would you summarise it though? Because I think it would be very unfair to say that he has traffic offenses, but not specifically state what they are. What if someone assumes the traffic offense was driving while drunk? If you just say "he has had numerous traffic offences" and leave it at that, you leave us (and him!) open to some pretty awful impressions. No, it's better to be specific about what the offenses were, to ensure there is no confusion. That's why I've written it like I have. To do otherwise could be considered misleading. So now you are making allegations against me that are untrue. You say that "That doesn't justify a gigantic list of non-notable companies - as you yourself stated, to demonstrate that you think it's intrinsically suspicious" and yet... every single one of those companies on that current list are referenced with a newspaper article about them. Again I ask you, which is the unnotable company? You seem to have shifted on your position that they are all unnotable when I pointed out that The Australian listed the companies. Yet here's something interesting: I had already cited The Australian. So what was your problem again? Seriously, and I'd like an answer to this: have you read the sources I have linked to? Because the next time you say that there is material in there that isn't sourced from a reliable source, if I find you haven't read the source then I'm going to file a user RFC. It's not acceptable to state that on one hand I'm an "obsessive", but on the other hand you tell me that I'm not referencing reliable and verifiable publications - when in fact I am! But now I have another problem. You keep removing material that you haven't raised on the talk page. Why is that? There are a number of other paragraphs I noted above. You keep removing them. But yet, whenever I ask you what your issues are, you don't tell me that they have any problems. If they have problems, you'd better say what they are. Or stop removing the material. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC) so... An admin has now inserted themselves into this. Apparently it is the article size that is now the issue. That admin hasn't read any of the material I've written here. @Timecop: care to look at the things I've written here first? Or will you shoot first and ask questions later? - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Why is this collapsed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.219 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Hmmm, and this extensive discussion has been collapsed and archived also. Tut tut, just remember folks, you can be blocked indefinitely for violating WP:CONSENSUS if you don't discuss your changes. But don't discuss them too much, you might violate WP:BLP! The only way to ensure you can satisfy both is to change the archives to 7 days, get the one discussing the issues blocked, and hide the dastardly comments as best you can by collapsing the comments. Works a treat as nobody can see the comments, new editors can't see the discussion and assume it's finished and the lack of activity means the archive bot moves it into the archives so mission accomplished! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.219 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Video 'rant'

He's at 'it' again! Just here for 'reference':

• ‘I hope you die you f**king sl*t’: Salim Mehajer unleashes violent tirade on estranged wife www.news.com.au. 22 August 2016

- 220 of ^Borg 12:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Content from City of Auburn

There seems to be some events not covered here (bolded), that are mentioned on the Auburn page. Possibly they shouldn't be there at all?:

Deputy Mayor Salim Mehajer

There was controversy when the Deputy Mayor of Auburn, Salim Mehajer was charged with threatening the father of one of the victims in the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. He was investigated over a conflict of interest when he voted on Council matters regarding rezoning where it was alleged he had pecuniary interests. As a result, Mehajer was given a four-month suspension from Council on 29 January 2016. On 10 February 2016, the Council was suspended while a public enquiry into allegations of "councillors misusing their positions." was conducted. An administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of the Council in the interim. On 18 February the administrator reversed decisions for two major developments that were set to benefit Mehajer.

Mehajer then text messaged 2 council members, Irene Simms and George Campbell. He accused them of being jealous of his success, possibly suffering from 'tall poppy syndrome', and referred to them as "dole bludgers", which both denied. He inferred that they had 'racial' issues with him, by writing "... someone with an 'olive complexion' lodging a development application, I/we are grossly targeted,". Simms said she has "never been on the dole, and they were "very offensive words from a bitter little boy". Campbell said "The term 'dole bludger' is a term of abuse, an insult, ..." and "The last time I was on unemployment benefits was well over 30 years ago."

Mehajer may have lost up to $10 million due to the overturned rulings regarding sales and zoning of land. He immediately rebutted these saying he made $12 million in half an hour, as the overturned land sale will now mean that the properties will be sold to him at a lower price due to a previous contract. It is understood that the Council (now under Administration) holds that no sale has ever taken place.

Auburn City Council was the subject of a mass public petition on the change.org website calling for the sacking of the Council, banning of real estate agents and developers, and the removal of Deputy Mayor Mehajer for serious governance issues and alleged corruption in local government. The Council was suspended on 10 February and a public enquiry established to investigate these allegations.

References

The two paragraphs in question were added there, unsourced, by an IP. I sourced and copy edited them, then thought maybe they were WP:UNDUE for the City page? 220 of ^Borg 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Salim's real backround is not Lebanese, his backround is from Iran.

Still unsure why a fair bit of arabs who come to Australia falsely identify themselves as Lebanese. I think the governement needs to start cracking down on why these people are doing that.

You can even see it in his face, iranian/persian 100%.

Source: Mohajer aka Mehajer.

"Mohajer" is a Persian word and it means "Immigrant"

http://forebears.io/surnames/mohajer

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110908121954AACNOQB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.161.40 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2016

Ethnicity is not Lebanese, please reduce protection so that I can amend to Iranian.

Truthwiki007 (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree Topher385. AGF but years on WP have taught me to treat any new account with 'truth' in their username with a great deal of suspicion! 220 of ^Borg 12:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Cosmetics ?

Another business venture: "Salim Mehajer has unveiled his own line of hotel toiletries."

Salim Mehajer’s latest move is utterly bizarre .news.com.au, 31 August 2016

--220 of ^Borg 06:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ibiza arrest

Meh? "Salim Mehajer arrested in Ibiza after altercation with taxi driver over spilled food" 14 November 2016, 220 of ^Borg 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Need more accurate info. WWGB (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. just Mehajer being Mehajer, which is not an admirable thing IMHO. 220 of ^Borg 14:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing content

So many of Mehajer's troubles are not included in the article: ordered to pay $25 000 to a cleaner, and alleged assaults on a taxi driver and a television reporter. [21] WWGB (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't end there! [22] AprilHare (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete?

Hi, I kind of feel like it would be appropriate to mark this page for speedy deletion, He's not a notable character, and the article doesn't discuss why he would be notable, he's some down and out former mayor of a small suburb of the west of sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.67 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment amounts to geospatial discrimination, nothing more. AprilHare (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

He's a hell of a lot more than that. This has been discussed before, he's not a candidate for speedy deletion. - 111.220.157.222 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Article bias

This articled is tremendously biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.105.170 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you could enlighten us about all the positive things that should be added ..... WWGB (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

notability

Speaking as an average Australian this bloke barely registers as a notable person in this country.

He was on a couple of free to air channels for having a ridiculous wedding and being a chump to his neighbors, he was the topic of conversation on talk back radio for a day or two, and at one point he was the Deputy Mayor of a suburb until they sacked him for being dodgy.

The length and detail of this article about his crimes (hardly notable as a criminal either) seem entirely out of proportion to his notability in Australia. I'd either drastically reduce this article to a paragraph or two, or remove it all together.

We went through this extensively when I created the article. He is absolutely notable in every way. This article has been edited extensively. If you would like yo propose what it should read, then suggest away, but I think it’s unlikely to change. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

List like

The general quality of this article has degraded to a list of dates when Salim... did stuff. It’s not terribly readable and the quality of writing is not great in general. Pity! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

I am quite concerned that this article is now very disorganised and seems to show a great deal of bias against Mehajer. Most biographical articles recount someone’s life in a linear, biographical way. This article currently highlights Mehajer’s criminal activities.

I propose that we rewrite this and remove highlights to criminal charges, but instead incorporate them into his biographical history. I also believe we need to be specific about the details of his convictions, and who sentenced and convicted him when this occurred. A lack of specificity about what he was convicted over can be quite unfair to Mehajer. For instance, I was quite deliberate in explaining that he had his tablets throughout his house. I let the reader decide if he was disorganised or deliberate in the manner in which he had the medication. I also noted who the magistrate was who convicted him, which is useful if you want to delve into their past judgements as a comparison of previous convictions. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"endive rabies"? WWGB (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo caused by editing on iPhone. Anyway, I can see that we mention other magistrates and judges. I would prefer to work towards consensus, it might be nice to discuss this further.

What are your specific issues with naming the magistrate, and what is the issue you have with noting where the drugs were found? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It is unnecessary trivia which does not enhance the reader's understanding of the matter. Since "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", it stays out of the article until such consensus is reached. WWGB (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It actually does help the reader's understanding. Knowing who convicts someone is a reasonable thing to note about someone who is convicted of a crime. If you want to know more about the case, then you can look up the magistrates name and check their decision. It's rather hard to find the decision without knowing the magistrates name... it's fairly crucial contextual information.

I notice that you haven't addressed the other issues around this article being biased by focusing on his convictions.

Incidentally, I think I need to clarify that I respect you may have a differing view, and thank you for expressing it. If you could explain your reasoning somewhat more clearly, it might make things a bit more clear why you are so opposed to the magistrates name be included. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Specificity

I think it is important to be specific about Mehajer’s drug offenses, and note the name of the magistrate who convicted him. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether the magistrate is named Bill Smith or Mary Jones does not assist the reader's understanding of the court case. The names of the magistrates overseeing Mehajer's numerous other convictions are not included in the article either. Removed until there is consensus to include, per WP:ONUS. Likewise the unnecessary listing of every room where drugs were found. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The person who convicts the one found guilty is important because you can check how they have ruled previously. I don’t consider it minutae. Furthermore, aren’t you the one who has been removing that material? apologies, I misread the edit history. I strike this and apologise.

Also, the fact that the drugs were found in various rooms gives greater context for where the police found the drugs. The reader can draw their own conclusions, perhaps it wasn’t malicious and was just accidental. It seems a bit biased to just say he was deliberately keeping the pain medication, are we implying he is a drug dealer?

I am rather concerned that you have WP:OWN issues with this article... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I am very concerned that you fail to follow WP:ONUS and continue to edit war. WWGB (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring... I don't understand why you think that the name of the magistrate is a bad thing to have in the article. Can you explain why this is not important? What is your reasoning? I have provided my reasoning, what is yours? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You have added the same material to the article three times when you know it is contested. That is the classic definition of an edit war. As I have already said above, "Whether the magistrate is named Bill Smith or Mary Jones does not assist the reader's understanding of the court case". It is just not important. If one editor wants to chase down prior rulings by the same magistrate (why?) they can find the name in the citation. The other 99.99% of readers do not care. It is just space-wasting trivia. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious how you know that 99.99% of readers don't care. You are the only person who has objected... It seems that The Australian thought it was important enough to note who the Magistrate was. Anyway, I'm taking this to RFC. It is concerning that you have shown that you are happy to edit war yourself. I am curious, incidentally, why you changed the talk page history to only several days some time ago with the edit summary "start the cleanup" and then switched it to the current 30 day limit once the discussions you opposed were gone?

I'm genuinely not sure how you can say that the judge who actually does the conviction is "trivia"... I am concerned that that you are exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND tendencies though, with an edit summary of "standoff"? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for showing at least some attempt at compromising by saying that he had the tablets in 6 locations of his house. I appreciate you conceding the fact that having the medication in six locations in his house is not trivial. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If I may, I have no part in this, and quite frankly do not know the specifics to be able to argue on the validity of either side. However I will add that perse the reader disagrees with the judgement by the magistrate. They may want to learn about what else the magistrate has done over their career. I believe no matter the ramifications of the case, if it is controversial, as this appears to be good proof this case specifically is. That the inclusion of the magistrate is important. Look at it like this, there is disagreement over a judgement but the magistrate shouldn't be included? That's potentially, a important piece of information the reader may want. NearMiddayNight ^{Come chat} 06:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that this matter is controversial, or that there is disagreement over the judgement. In fact, Mehajer pleaded guilty. WWGB (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s hardly the point though. It is actually useful information to know the magistrate’s name, especially if they convict and sentence someone. The judge of a court case is an essential part of any judicial proceedings. I am also uncertain how you think that the judge in a court case is “not notable”. That doesn’t make much sense. It’s possible I’m not following your argument, could you clarify what you meant?

It is somewhat controversial, however, as Mehajer had a legitimate complaint of back pain. He doesn’t appear to have been dealing in the drug, and nobody suggested this so he seems to have needed it for potentially legitimate reasons. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I meant it is controversial evidenced by this specific talk page topic. Sentencing could also cause someone to have a specific interest in matter. NearMiddayNight ^{Come chat} 06:47, 23

Thank you for your well thought through and reasonable points. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC

I believe that the magistrate's name should be included in his drug conviction for possessing Endone. I feel that this is necessary to give needed context, not least because the reader can check the court records more easily to find the decision for themselves. I cannot see the reason why this is considered minutae, and not necessary and needed context for the reader. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit. Wikipedia does not routinely include the names of non-notable judicial officers. The reader's understanding of the verdict is not enhanced by the name of the magistrate. WWGB (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this part of an existing policy or guideline? I notice you removed further information such as the tablets were found in different areas of the house as "trivia", might I suggest you are a bit close to this article? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    Name-calling is a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not sure where I named called you, if I did so then I apologise. I am arguing on the merits, I appreciate your point of view but respectfully disagree as I cannot see how your argument that the name of the magistrate of a court case does not help give necessary context around a particular court case.

    Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but your argument seems to be “I can’t see how anyone thinks this is important information, therefore if I can’t see why it might be useful it should not be in the article”. That seems very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT or even WP:WHOCARES and not actually an argument with many merits... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    Au contraire, it's an argument based on WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Who sentenced Alan Bond, Lindy Chamberlain, Kathleen Folbigg, Ivan Milat, ... ? Guess what? Not reported in those articles! Naming a non-notable member of the judiciary does nothing to enhance the understanding of the crime and its consequences. So why would a local court magistrate require naming? I dunno! Just because something appears in a newspaper does not mean we have to transcribe it into Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    I don’t really consider that to be a valid argument, that just means that those articles don’t have the magistrates name. Look, I’m sorry you are upset about this, but I still don’t even know what you mean by a particular magistrate is “non-notable”. Can you point me to any clear guidelines that explain clearly why a magistrate should not be named? I am genuinely unclear at how you think that a magistrate is not an important part of a court case. Could you clarify your criteria for not including the name of a magistrate, and how it might confuse the reader? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit, for reasons given. The only justification for inclusion offered appears to be so that the reader could hypothetically re-try the case for themselves. We don't do that here, that's what appeals and media campaigns are for. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • that isn’t what I actually said. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - problematic RfC prompt: Chris, next time you open an RfC, you need to be more careful of the requirements of this process: your prompt is meant to be neutrally worded in such a way that it does not clearly cast the option you support in a much better light than the one you oppose (see WP:RfC). People have already begun to respond, so it is a toss-up as to whether the more appropriate thing is to leave it as is or adjust it (the best option is probably to leave the original message, but strike it through, and then add a new prompt (with a new signature/time stamp). But whatever course of action you take here, in the future you should always present all major positions in the dispute (typically but not always two) and make sure to frame each neutrally, in the manner the proponent(s) for those positions would argue it, without all of the "I cannot see how this could be perceived as necessary--it clearly doesn't belong" editorializing: that should be saved for your !vote and kept out of the prompt--when you are the one framing the discussion for respondents via the initial prompt, you are required to be neutral in that respect. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Understood,, I appreciate the feedback. The issue here, however, is I don’t know what the opposing position is. They merely state that magistrates aren’t notable, but never justify why. I take your point on board! I haven’t done an RFC in over 14 years from memory, and much of what you wrote about is not in the instructions on the RFC page. I guess it’s one of those “unwritten rules”, that get one blocked. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• In that instance, you should just replicate what the other side has had to say on the matter (e.g. "an opposing position has been put forward that the magistrate's name is not notable in this context"), even if that argument feels incomplete to you. Your aren't obligated to provide a good argument for them (especially if you don't believe there has been one): you are merely required to represent their position faithfully and non-prejudiciciously and to not present one side as inherently or "obviously" more correct, even if that is in fact your own position, and one you plan to forward in your own !vote (where it obviously is permitted, so long as you are otherwise civil). As to the location of the mandate itself, it is at WP:RFCNEUTRAL--WP:WRFC also has some good guidance on how to approach this issue: it is an essay, not policy, but useful nevertheless. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of that essay, thank you for pointing me to it. I'll remember this in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise and Chris.sherlock: I disagree coming up with opposing argument is the way to resolve things. While I'm far from an expert on RfCs I'm pretty sure the brevity and avoiding any arguments is the key. Actually I'm fairly sure there is a size limit which will break the bot so there's even more reason for keeping them short. You're not supposed to give any rational in your RfC, people should be able to read the RfC without having any idea of youur opinion. Your opinion/arguments can be given in discussion/!voting section. In a case like a neutral question would be something like "Should we include the name of the magistrate involved in the subject's conviction for possession of Endone?". You can then follow that up with a signed posted outlining the arguments for or against the including of the name. There is no need to give the arguments of the "opposing side", they can write their arguments in the RfC by themselves. Edit: I should clarify I don't mean to suggest you can never include info on previous discussions, indeed Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment includes some examples which do. But those are generally more more general e.g. citing specific policies that editors feel are relevant. Trying to outline precisely why editors feel the name should or shouldn't be included is IMO too detailed for an RfC and also too easy to get wrong or oversimplify things. Also a final point, if you are already talking to others, which is likely why you need an RfC (because you can't come to consensus), you could always propose an RfC and seek feedback on the wording before starting it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nil Einne I don't really see how that is inconsistent with the direction I gave or the advice laid out at the relevant policy and essay I linked to. I agree that it is a matter of the existing context (the editorial issue in dispute, the nature of the previous discussion, and any number of other factors) just how complicated the prompt itself will be, and how much it will pull in the nuance of the particular stances which have typified the debate up until that point. But there is a clear mandate that the filing be neutral, and to the extent that the person filing the request/authoring the prompt feels that they need to frame their argument in that context in order for the nature of the dispute to be made clear, it is incumbent upon them to also present any relevant counter-argument in a light that does not dismiss it in such a fashion that it is presented as poorly reasoned, before the respondent has even seen it presented by its advocates. Speaking in the terms you framed above, I'm not a fan of declaring myself an 'expert' in anything, but I will say this: aside from generating article content itself, RfC is probably the biggest single piece of how I've devoted my time on this project, in the project-space sense: I think I've responded to somewhere between a thousand and twelve hundred individual requests over the last ten years. And I can tell you that my experience in that respect suggests to me that the prompt is one of the biggest factors (if not the element) that most determines how smoothly the discussion proceeds once feedback begins--particularly with regard to whether it arrives at a useful consensus conclusion and how much acrimony there is along the way.

Your caveats regarding simplicity are indeed worth considering (though, not to get too nitpicky, but I did already emphasize the need to be concise and to remove the meat and potatoes of one's own position in my own initial response), but the overall lesson to be taken here is that, to whatever extent the positions must be outlined in the prompt due to the circumstances, they should be done so with equatability, such that the OP's position is not bootstrapped into a more favourable light by the wording/tone. Mind you, I am clarifying my perspective on this point merely to respond to said caveats, and for the sake of discourse with my fellow editors about the relevant policy and how it takes shape under the pragmatic factors that influence this particular community process: lest any of this be taken as further criticism of the situation here, let me say expressly that I for one am entirely satisfied that Chris' activity here has been in good faith and has been productive on the whole: in fact, they have shown consistent civility and a constructive mindset throughout the discussion, regardless of this one point I felt needed to be raised. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit: This is a straightforward WP:WEIGHT issue, giving light to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING argument already made above. The OP writes "I cannot see the reason why this is considered minutae [sic], and not necessary and needed context for the reader.", but that's a flawed argument here, as the WP:ONUS is on them (as the proponent of the disputed content) to provide a solid argument for the utility the reference of the name creates in terms of enhancing the understanding of the topic in question, as an encyclopedic subject. So far I have seen no argument advanced that would have an editorial purpose beneficial enough to bootstrap this incidental factoid into a role where it is providing extra context to the statement or other useful functionality to the reader: the suggestion that it would somehow make the finding of court documents to verify the conviction easier on said reader strikes me as a weak one. First off, I can't imagine one reader of this article in a thousand is actually going to be doing that, and even where the occasional rare outlier reader hypothetically might, the magistrate's name wouldn't actual do anything to make search results easier to acquire or more accurate vis-a-vis the process of searching any relevant public databases: the subject's name and the jurisdiction will be all that is required for anything that is in fact publicly disclosable. So, lacking any valid argument put forward for the utility the magistrate's name would add (and having looked a the content in context, to make sure I am not missing some obvious dimensions here) I can't see an argument for inclusion here. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I have also quoted the magistrate here to highlight her reasoning, which is definitely helpful for readers. This was one of the things I intended to do, but sadly never got to it till now. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I would be willing to provide my input on the inclusion of the quote as a separate matter, once I saw the proposed wording. Similarly, I would even be willing to reconsider my above position if it turned out the quote in question was something I thought should be properly attributed for whatever reason. But, that willingess to reconsider should not be taken as an indication that I am likely to shift my position on the matter, regardless of the content of the quote and whether there is a separate consensus to include it. As I said before, this comes down to a pretty straightforward WP:WEIGHT argument: if there were some kind of question about this ruling that caused public discourse which was covered by WP:reliable sources, such that said public questions became a WP:DUE subject in themselves, that would be one thing--and I would be pretty likely to support including the name in that instance, notwithstanding WP:BLP concerns. However, that is not the case here, and the fact that you think the attention paid to the subject's criminal convictions is "unfair" and therefore want to encourage additional scrutiny on the ruling and the finder of fact, is not in itself an editorially legitimate reason for including the name. Indeed, that is something much more akin to WP:original research--or at a minimum a non-neutral and problematic motive/justification for the addition. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
      • What is quite amusing is that when I first wrote this article, I was criticized for being too harsh, now I am being criticized for saying the article is too negative. I think you may have misunderstood, however. I consider the general structure highlights Mehajer's criminal record, not the fact that they are noted. Most of the convictions, rather ironically, was what I wrote. Now it is an poorly structured mess of an article, in my opinion. This doesn't mean that I am disregarding what you say, and despite this criticism, I appreciate your other considered words, and I definitely appreciate your honest opinion. Peace :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
        • "I consider the general structure highlights Mehajer's criminal record, not the fact that they are noted. Most of the convictions, rather ironically, was what I wrote. Now it is an poorly structured mess of an article, in my opinion." Fair enough: for what it is worth, there are other arguments regarding weight or tone regarding the criminal topics in the article that I would likely be more amenable to (I think the structure of the lead sentence could be improved for example); I just don't think this particular proposed edit is well advised. "I appreciate your other considered words, and I definitely appreciate your honest opinion." Thank you, that's kind of you to say--I return the sentiment. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Omit. If you want it to be easy for the reader to find the court case, then provide a citation or external link to it. If the magistrate's past performance is relevant, then a secondary source will have mentioned that. Unless and until a secondary source is found that says this, then it should be omitted. If one is found, then we should be able to mention more than "Bob was the magistrate" and instead say something like "Bob, whose judicial unusual track record is unusual for [insert specified and relevant reason here], was the magistrate". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral- It seems to me to be the kind of thing that can be included but doesn't need to be. It's no more inappropriate AFAICS than the weird fetish about inmate numbers you see in other articles about convicted people. Reyk _YO! 15:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Close the answer is that the name should not be included. I will ensure that this is what is done on all articles in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: I have clarified the policy at WP:JUDGE. Thank you for your input, I have also removed the local magistrate’s name. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Chris.sherlock, if you want to stop the RFC, then you have to remove the RFC template at the top of the section. (It's perfectly fine for the person who starts an RFC to stop it early, once you're satisfied that you understand the community's current view on a situation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)