Portal talk:Current events/2018 December 7

Huawei CFO hearing

• [1] [2] It's on the 7 December hearing that charges against Meng were formally made public for the first time; there is no formal extradition request yet. (Reuters) Wakari07 (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I have take out the whole item, reverting you as you put the original in. [3] So per BRD do not include back in again till we get agreeing on this. Your version is bad because like i said in comments it is not the us prosecutors doing anything it is the canadian prosecutor doing it. Waskerton (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. Wakari07 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes because you keep put in nonsensical eddits if you stoppped there would be none of it the edit wars. Sorry but there is no other way to put it. For this case you edits are incorrect cause it is canadian prosecutor who do the charging not US one. Waskerton (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand the beginning of your argument. The Canadian prosecutor is a mouthpiece for the US prosecutor in this case, since the arrest warrant comes from the US. Canada arrests and (eventually) will extradite Meng at the request of the US, relaying the US accusation that she breached a US law. Also the news is not really that bail is refused, but that finally the charges are revealed, ending rumor and speculation six days after the arrest. Did you read the title of the Reuters article? On policy: I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not to demolish it. I stand by my last proposal:

*The United States wants to prosecute Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on charges of "conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions", a court in Vancouver hears. U.S. prosecutors say that she misrepresented Huawei's connection with Skycom, a company allegedly used by Huawei between 2009 and 2014 to conduct business with Iran despite United States sanctions against Iran. Meng was arrested on 1 December. Her bail hearing is adjourned until 10 December. (Reuters)Wakari07 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Is your point that you want to modify "U.S. prosecutors" (mentioned in the source!) to "The U.S." or "A U.S. judge" or "A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York" as stated in a December 8 CNN source [4]? Petty nonsense from my perspective, but hey, maybe you want to "talk" about this for the next two weeks. What a waste. Wakari07 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We could make it:*The United States wants to prosecute Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on charges of "conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions", a court in Vancouver hears. Meng is accused of misrepresenting Huawei's connection with Skycom, a company allegedly used by Huawei between 2009 and 2014 to conduct business with Iran despite United States sanctions against Iran. Meng was arrested on 1 December. Her bail hearing is adjourned until 10 December. (Reuters) Does this suit you? Wakari07 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Or replace "prosecute" by "try" also: *The United States wants to try Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on charges of "conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions", a court in Vancouver hears. Meng is accused of misrepresenting Huawei's connection with Skycom, a company allegedly used by Huawei between 2009 and 2014 to conduct business with Iran despite United States sanctions against Iran. Meng was arrested on 1 December. Her bail hearing is adjourned until 10 December. (Reuters) Wakari07 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Canadian prosecutor is a mouthpiece for the US prosecutor in this case Ah ok I found the reason for the pov pushing. Just as i suspect all along that was the REAL motivation for your latest edit wars. to paint this event as a slave master relationship. Anyway i revert your unilaterall action of inclusion of your preferred material without consensus. You should already know better from last time we debated so you do it again we go again go to the administrator incident. The news event of very very high clarity says what happened. Which was first and foremost a bail hearing occurred. Not any of this semi essay for a blog of how you interpret the situation that you think occurred. Background info inclusion there is no problem provided of course that the stance of the canada and us is accurately reflected.

Here is my proposal:

*Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou attends bail hearing in Vancouver where she charged by Canadian and American prosecutors with conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions in order to commit evasion of United States sanctions against Iran so as to conduct business with Iran while she awaits extradition to the United States. No decision was reached after nearly six hours of arguments and counter-arguments, and the hearing was adjourned until the next Monday. (Reuters)

Waskerton (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No matter how we state it, she's arrested on behalf of a United States court. You finally admit that's U.S. prosection. And the sentence is bad English, again. But hey, I published it. Thank you to the WikiGnome who will kindly correct it. I added a needed verb to the first sentence and moved the whole to the present tense. Please read the Portal:Current events/Edit instructions. Wakari07 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

At least one user argues that this short overview "does not need to include past and future court dates." Their edit also implies that the bail is not really notable here. Wakari07 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I miss the "misrepresenting Huawei's connection with Skycom" part. I think it's an important part of the case that was revealed on 7 December. Wakari07 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: Wow this is some of the most stupidest things i have ever read. And to think you makeing yourself out to be english language master compared to me. haha i just laugh. The other user say this short overview "does not need to include past and future court dates" so of course the bail hearing is notable cause the bail hearing happened...ON DECEMBER 7! Unl4ess you mean by bail the ADJOURNING. In which case you make the mistake not me. Yes she was arrested on behalf of a us court so it means it is a US and Canadian prosuection because she was arrested...in Canada. As for Skycom part it is irrelevant info all we need know is why she is charge not so random detail about connection to xyz company. i really do not even know why you go so hard and far to edit war like this when you just do not even read things with ANY care. Waskerton (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

So how would you improve the blurb? Wakari07 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the day-to-day bail hearing tribulations: this is not some kind of royalty magazine. And I already told you that English is not my native tongue either — so let's tone down on that. You were rebutted on notability in "our" ANI thread. What really happened on 7 December, I told you and the articles tell that too, is that the case was finally made public in a formal way. What I want to know is the fine detail of the case itself. The role of Hong Kong-based Skycom Tech is essential for the cover-up/misrepresentation case. How were the sanctions allegedly evaded? The fate of the human is important too, but essentially, the case is about a corporation, and corporate liability traditionally shields individual company executives. Meng is held personally liable for a cover-up that can be seen as committed by a corporation. That's what's shocking. If she were in the drug trading or weapons smuggling business, I'd understand... but telecoms? We didn't even mention HSBC, by the way. Wakari07 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

[5] On Sunday her argument to be granted bail is hypertension. Wakari07 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: I can just tell by what you writing you are some person who likes to act extremely smart in real life. My guessing is this explains why you just have so much time to spend on wiki just playing these stupidest of edit wars caus you cannot get along with anybody in real one. This is crazy what you writing. We are talking of a blurb for a news event we are not writing one giant essay for it. even my proposal already i would say it is too long but now you want to expand it to something like you write on a personal blog. We do not care about your pseudo lawyerinong about liability this or liability that all people care about is what happened (there is a bail hearing) and why (cause she is accused of alleged sanction violation by ccertain country). That is it. no need for irrevalnt detail about hsbc or telecom abc or skycom or whatever. Funny you should say you do not treat this like a royalty magainze when that is exactly what you doing. Waskerton (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's start again from the title of the article: the U.S accuses Meng of cover-up. => She allegedly plotted to defraud banks by lying that Skycom was not a Huawei company. By conducting such business in Iran, Huawei allegedly evaded the U.S. sanctions on Iran. <= That is the real 7 December news on the case in less than 30 words. It's a rather complex line of accusation and we're nearing the 14 kilobytes of our previous discussion while I, indeed stubbornly, try to explain to you what is really notable for the core of the case. The bail hearing just happens to be the occasion on which this was revealed. I didn't mention or speculate on HSBC, because "multiple financial institutions" are mentioned, and it's not up to us to join WP:Speculation on which one was maybe defrauded, which one was maybe frauding and which one was maybe whistleblowing. [6] [7] The Canadian Press agency has the (admittedly Canadian) prosecutor's words on the "crux of the alleged misrepresentation" and on her "putting the [unnamed financial] institution at risk of financial harm and criminal liability". I also wonder why you put so much energy in trying to destroy a precise and exhaustive wording that nobody else contested. To summarize: Skycom is notable because it was mentioned 11 times in the article. Wakari07 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No real deal on december 7 is that she attend bail hearing on charges. First and foremost it is that. Not your attend to portray it as a slave master relationship with your terrible pov. THen what it is about: alleged sanction evasion. By who: Canadian and US prosecutor. That is all we need to know. No need for Skycom or HSBC mention and irrelevant infos like that. You make it clear your bias already above, no need to try to hide it by adding in irrelevant infos and try to make it appear less poved, giving her personal treatment or something like it. Waskerton (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I still read that she is accused of misrepresenting the relation between Skycom and Huawei, and it's still not in the blurb. The generalization that is now published does not permit the reader to understand the basics of the case. Reuters resumes the "alleged conspiracy to defraud banks", again, without talking about the banks, in the article's first paragraph as: Huawei CFO "faces U.S. accusations that she covered up her company’s links to a firm that tried to sell equipment to Iran despite sanctions;" the reader is entitled to a few words linking the conspiracy and the sanctions evasion. Otherwise there is no overview and the story is unintelligible. Wakari07 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Asked a WP:Third opinion, resuming this as "disagreement about mentioning the alleged role of Skycom." Wakari07 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

More time wasting just. The basics are all there the charge, who is charging, what happened. mentioining about skycom or little detail like that will do nothing to change that. Waskerton (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Third opinion: it's not necessary to mention Skycom in the current events portal, because there's only room there for a brief summary. Geogene (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I condensed the blurb to a brief summary:

• Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou attends a bail hearing in Vancouver while she awaits possible extradition to the United States. She is charged with conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions. (Reuters)

Wakari07 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: I have revert as your change as it was unilaterall and not discussed here before you did it. I also remind you this is the version of blurb we both agree on before you latest unilateral action. Do not revert this or we go to ani. Waskerton (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop this. We have a third opinion to keep it to a short summary. I consider this as a consensus. Wakari07 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: you are misrepresenting the third opinion. And brd so do not remove. I said i would take you to ani before but because the reason you give for revert of yours is so clueless i will try one last time to convince you of why you are wrong before ACTUALLY we go to the ani. the third opinion you will see only shoot down your proposal to mention of skycom. there was NOTHING about changing the blurb. and NOBODY agree to it except you. If you want to change blurb you need consensus (maybe another third opinion) for THAT. By the way you shorten the blurb so much that now it make no sense to the reader because it does not explain WHY she is charged with "conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions." i say again: the third opinion was for rejection of your skycom proposal NOT an approval of your version of text. We will go to ANI if you change back to your preferred shorten text. Waskerton (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Almost funny how the threatening-with-WP:ANI-level is kept high. Almost. Wakari07 (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: Yes. Because you cannot keep doing these annoying edits. there would be no one of these so called ani "threat" if you just cared to read things Waskerton (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It feels like we're talking past each other. A short summary should include the charge as is, no? Why clutter it with a half rationale? Either the naked charge or a full reasoning. The half-baked version as you force it now is unacceptable for me. We have a consensus to keep Skycom out, so should the rest of the explanatory detail. Everything you add is only a part, not the whole, of the chain of allegations that ends up in the alleged 'conspiracy to defraud banks.' Skycom's role is crucial in the case. Wakari07 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"We have a consensus to keep Skycom out, so should the rest of the explanatory detail." That is YOUR job to prove not mine. i have already gave reason for it above but i remind you for emphasis this is the version of blurb we both agreed on before you start your attempt to edit war (again). Waskerton (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no version of blurb we both agreed on. Skycom is the link between the banks and the sanctions. If we leave it out, it's only logical to keep out the rest of the associated reasoning. Wakari07 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

[8] this is version we both agreed on (minus the adjournment which you say was not needdded by another eeditor). Waskerton (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a plain misrepresentation and beside the point. On 9 December, we were talking about the two prosecuting countries. When I published my reply on your proposal (not my agreement!), this was the version that I supported: it mentioned Skycom, I repeat, to link the charge of misrepresentation with the US sanctions that indeed are alleged to be the factor that would defraud banks, if a violation of the sanctions will be shown in court. But please remain serious: if Skycom is not notable, there is no logical link with the US sanctions! Wakari07 (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)