Talk:Howard Moscoe/Archive

message: The cited article does not say that HM will be resigning in June -- it says that his current term will end in June.  Also, citing an obviously partisan blog isn't recommended.  CJCurrie 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June

message: GoldDragon,
I've discovered that the Toronto Star made a mistake with its "helicopters" quote.  The line they attributed to Moscoe was actually from Julian Fantino, who was misquoting something Moscoe had said earlier.  
“I think [City Councillor] Howard Moscoe, though, said . . .‘I wish I had a whole slew of them and have them land on doughnut shops,' ” the chief says, shaking his head and muttering the words “uninformed, uneducated” before trailing off.
Globe and Mail, 26 February 2005, M1
Moscoe's actual comments were somewhat different, and were more hyperbolic than insulting.  CJCurrie 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Helicopters

message: Could someone please review the page for style errors.  CJCurrie 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now ...

message: GD,
Homey previously commented that the disputed section is trivial, and should be reduced to 1-2 sentences per incident.  I agree with this assessment.  This means the vote is currently 2-1 against your current edit.  Why not try to build consensus on the talk page if you want a change, rather than reposting the same thing over and over and over.  CJCurrie 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold Dragon edits

message: Do other editors believe that GoldDragon's changes should be kept, or removed? CJCurrie 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The current dispute

message: First of all, the votes were from a long time ago and its been just you and me. Second, I have a long list of issues to start rolling over, notably the police section which is pretty POV since it doesn't show any police attempts to refute it. So its not appropriate to decide whether it should be included ot not at this stage. GoldDragon 14:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the edit war, what is wrong with the police in chrono order? GoldDragon 14:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to have all the "ethnic controversies" information in one section, though this particular matter is not really that important one way or the other.  CJCurrie 02:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CJCurrie deletes 

message: CJCurrie wrote on my talk page: 
:"(ii) How should we convey the controversy regarding Moscoe's role in Rick Ducharme's resignation? I'm attempting to provide a balanced and comprehensive view, although I'm concerned that the text may be skewed too far towards Moscoe....
I am not clear what the dispute is here. The current version looks to be fairly balanced to me, but I'd like to hear what concerns about it may be outstanding.
:"(iii) GD also wants to change the "police" section. I don't believe his changes are appropriate."
The current version presents Moscoe's view. It does not present any criticism of Moscoe's approach to policing. I think some balance may be required here. 
Instead of "Controversies", would you consider "Verbal gaffes"?  Ground Zero | t 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: further edits

message: I have difficulties with the following aspects of GoldDragon's version:
(i)  GD writes that "Karen Stintz, Frances Nunziata and others" (my emphasis) described the "Lady Jane" contest as demeaning.  The implication is that there was widespread opposition to the memo among both council and media.  In fact, there is no indication from newspaper reports that any other councillors or reporters agreed with Stintz and Nunziata's assessment, and at least one reporter was of the opinion that it was a contrived controversy.  I've pointed this out to GoldDragon several times, but he keeps returning "and others" without providing a shred of evidence.
(ii)  GD's other reversions to the "Lady Jane" section are trivial, although they serve to depict HM in a slightly less favourable light.
(iii)  David Gunn may have emphasized keeping equipment and infrastructure in a "state of good repair", but using the phrase in this context serves to "poison the well" and depict Moscoe's requests as misguided.  It's subtle, but it's POV all the same.
(iv)  The Toronto Star did not actually say that the strike resulted from Moscoe's talks with the union.  Read the source material again.
(v)  The timing of Ducharme's departure is not particularly salient to this article, and GD's reference to the same has the appearance of a non-sequiteur.
(vi)  It is not clear why a media report criticizing Ducharme's resignation should be removed from the article.
(vii)  "In order to get the best deal for the city" is POV, as there is no evidence that a non-competitive contract will prevent this from occurring.
(viii)  To argue that "Moscoe did not refute the lack of competitiveness" for a non-competitive contract is nothing short of absurd.  Why GD sees the need to include this is a bit of a mystery.
(ix)  The Giambrone matter is currently included in the footnotes, as is the fact that four out of six Bombardier critics met with Siemens or its lobbyists.  If one is included in the main body of the article, both should be.  (Mind you, I don't believe that either is necessary for a Howard Moscoe biography).
(x)  Moscoe's extended quote is about the larger Bombardier/Siemens controversy, and not about the Tel Aviv trip specifically.  GD's version suggests the latter.
(xi)  I've already noted that Fantino's mis-remembered Moscoe's words concerning copters and donut shopts, and I suspect that Moscoe's intent may have been rather different from Fantino's extrapolation.  In any event, the chief got his facts wrong -- there's no compelling reason to include his faulty criticism in the article.
(xii)  The other Moscoe quote re: police was made in the aftermath of a cabbie being stabbed to death.  There is no suggestion, in the initial report, that any members of the Toronto police were offended by the comment.  I suspect the Star may have gotten this "fact" wrong as well (you can't really trust a quickie quote-list very far).  
(xiii)  GD's version also omits unrelated changes and corrections.
I think that's everything.  CJCurrie 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The rationale for my edit

message: *I've given this debate a bit of a read through, and for the most part, it seems clear that although the actual content of many of GoldDragon's may be important, they are presented in an extremely PoV manner that IMO smells agenda-pushing. Issues (ii) and (vii) below are prime examples of that, though the rest work as well. The key here that I think GoldDragon needs to understand (and trust me, I have experience with POV pushers) is that Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, all additions to the article need to be entirely factual and presented in a clearly neutral manner - something that User:CJCurrie seems to have done well. GoldDragon's edits (specifically the ones identified as contentious in this discussion) should be reworked to be presented in a neutral manner, or else removed. In addition, this issue of what is notable enough for inclusion has come up often in my own disputes. The most useful tool I've come up with to deal with this is to ask myself "Will the average, a-political Torontonian find this information useful?" Things like the election sign business for example; while interesting to those who are intensely involved, if you were to ask the average person, they'd probably say something along the lines of "Who cares?" That, I find, is a good measure of notability when dealing with trivia in politician articles-- pm_shef 03:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside input

message: I oppose the following aspects of GoldDragon's version:
(i)  Stinz [sic] and David Soknacki signed an affidavit requesting that the integrity commissioner investigate Moscoe for the comments.
Reason:  It's not relevant.  Anyone can sign an affidavit, and this particular bit of information adds nothing to Wikipedia's presentation of the "controversy".  There is, moreover, nothing to suggest that the integrity commissioner followed up on the request.
GoldDragon may object that the next paragraph references a separate letter to the integrity commissioner by Stintz and others.  The latter piece, however, was an "open" letter published in a major Toronto newspaper -- it's relevance has nothing to do with the fact that it was sent to the integrity commissioner, and everything to do with the local publicity it received.
(ii) In the same section, GoldDragon's use of the words "criticized the concert as demeaning to women" seems to imply that the contest actually was demeaning to women.  As that particular point is very much in doubt, "argued that the contest was demeaning" is more appropriate.
(iii)  In early August 2006, Karen Stintz and first time candidate Chris Ouellette accused Moscoe of using his city hall email account for his election sign making business., etc.
Reason:  This is a trivial matter.  Moscoe was accused of a minor infraction (along the lines of making personal calls from one's office), and no formal complaints were laid.  I was initially willing to let this one stand, but now I agree with Pete Peters that it should be excised.
(iv)  When the ATU placed ads in the newspapers highlighting the plight of assaulted transit operator Bobby Lowe, etc.
Reasons:  There isn't much of a story here, and GoldDragon's presentation is grotesquely one-sided.  
The ATU ran ads suggesting that the TTC had acted in a callous manner toward Lowe following his injury.  The TTC responded by arguing that the ATU's anger was misplaced, and that a different agency was responsible for the driver's insurance problems.  Moscoe later met with the injured driver, and promised to investigate the matter (he also suggested that Lowe was being used for political ends by Kinnear and others).  The latter facts have been omitted from GoldDragon's account, and the material has been presented in such a manner as to make Moscoe appear callous and unconcerned.
GoldDragon has suggested that this story is useful to our understanding of the one-day wildcat strike, without providing any compelling evidence to this end.  His attempt to link the story to the strike via the "safety concerns" issue is threadbare and unconvincing: safety concerns can be mentioned without dragging this trumped up "scandal" into the article.  CJCurrie 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: *GoldDragon, simply commenting on the talk page doesn't mean you automatically have free reign to revert an edit. Commenting on the talk page needs to be a means to resolving the dispute - by continuosly(sp) reverting near-consensus edits without waiting for a resolution, you're only inflaming the situtation. -- pm_shef 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there is only two of us arguing in this dispute. If I have a concern on the talk page and he says "no" for a reason that I disagree with, then I could go no further as he would not further discuss my concerns. GoldDragon 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, no, there aren't two of you in this dispute. I've been watching it as well, and have made my opinion on the matter clear, and the same can be said of a number of other editors. There is an entire community party to this dispute (as with all disputes on Wikipedia) and it is important that you remember that before engaging in further editwarring. -- pm_shef 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *The thing is, GD, while CJ might not have "consensus" (by virtue of you disagreeing with him), he does have far more agreement for his side of the issue. Despite your attempts, I have yet to see any evidence of POV in the Police section, and the Bombardier section, while seemingly a bit messy, isn't IMO, POV. -- pm_shef 16:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War Reminder

message: Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonito e Gostoso (talk • contribs) 
*"Keep it" is not a valid reason. Please stop reverting the page unless you're ready to explain your reverts. -- Chabuk 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've posted the issue at ANI. And trust me CJ, I know the feeling. We've got the same issue in Vaughan. -- Chabuk 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I've been following that situation too.  CJCurrie 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have absolutely have explained myself, and I'll go line by line and do it again if necessary. Bonito, on the other hand, shows up - his first edit being to revert Moscoe to GD's version, and when asked to explain himself, is unable to. -- Chabuk 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree with GoldDragon version. 

message: A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda.
These accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. They are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that,[citation needed] for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.
My comments:
1.  I have no reason to believe that Bonito e Gostoso is a sock/meatpuppet of GoldDragon, and I'm not making that particular accusation.  I've known GoldDragon for over a year on this forum, and while I strongly disagree with his general approach to Wikipedia and his recent actions on the Moscoe and Joe Volpe pages, he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would openly violate policy in such a matter.
2.  That being said, it's clear that User:Bonito e Gostoso is a "single-purpose account".  BeG's only contributions so far have been to revert the Moscoe page to GoldDragon's version four five six times, write "I agree with GoldDragon's version" on the talk page, revert to GoldDragon's version on the Joe Volpe page, and add an ungrammatical comment to the edit history.  It's obvious that this user ID was created solely to influence this discussion (albeit poorly), and perhaps to skirt the 3RR here and at the Volpe page.  (Updated:  19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy on Meatpuppets

message: (i)  It is not accurate to describe Moscoe as "an opponent of the police union".  People can oppose a union's practices without opposing the union itself?  (Should Moscoe also be described as an opponent of the Amalgamated Transit Union?  I didn't think so ...).
(ii)  Adding a strategically-located "though" in the middle of the Hispanic ad section adds POV, rather than removing it.
(iii)  I see you returned "and others" again, despite being told not to.
Btw, your edits are also removing every unrelated change that I've made to this article in the last month.  CJCurrie 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GoldDragon's new edit adds POV

message: No confusion over Soknacki, he knew what he was doing.
(i) I am not downplaying the significance of this, but at the same time, the extra Moscoe quotes only serve to imflame the issue. I include only the salient information for controversial passages.
(ii) What ever way that you read it...I'm not making a big deal about it.
GoldDragon 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CJCurrie's preferred version is POV

message: I've revised the section.  Please review it carefully before reverting again.  We're probably closer to resolving this than we've been in some time: in fact, I believe that our remaining differences are fairly minor.  (Btw, there's little point in having a header called "Rick Ducharme's resignation" when most of the section doesn't actually concern Rick Ducharme's resignation.)  CJCurrie 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update