User talk:A M R Sydney

A M R Sydney, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi A M R Sydney! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, A M R Sydney. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by – Margin1522 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Incorrectly restored links.

As mentioned on the CBD Light Rail talk page there are at least 5 references which were not restored correctly. Apparently the restoration was done from the displayed text which would not included the full reference details. I would suggest that you try to correct the five references concerned as without them, the paragraphs concerned could be subject to deletion.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning but someone was too quick for me and deleted most of the items before I had a chance to go fix up the broken references. Learning experience.A M R Sydney (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Standing Order 52

Hi, as per my comments on the article talk page, I think this whole standing order issue is a dead horse. The LC asked for material, the government said everything was produced. I really can't see the problem, unless you are suggesting the government lied - a very big call! Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes you got it - the Govt lied. See the talk page for CSELR (OK, I'm lazy and not typing current page name!). They provided a business case summary but not a business case that the summary was created from. I have provided the link to the index of papers produced (mainly email acceptances/rejections of meeting appointments btw) so you can confirm that the Business case was never provided. There are no source documents for any figure contained in the Business Case Summary. Some of the numbers are shown as incorrect from prior and post-TfNSW publications (such as with the Capacity claimed by GB on the MR for the Modification Approval yet the actual modification report states figures that are 50% lower.).

• source Final SSI 6042 MOD 1 Secretary's Assessment Report_Feb 2015.pdf (5.536 MB)

The assessment undertaken by TfNSW based the capacity of the light rail service on the provision of up to 8,620 passengers per hour as part of normal operations in future years"

• Modification Report Dec 2014

In these future operations (at least 10 years after opening) during the peak hour there is potential capacity to increase to enable the movement of up to 8,620 passengers per hour (18.5 LRVs per hour each carrying up to 466 passengers). This would represent an increase of approximately 20 per cent in peak capacity against the approved project which would have enabled the movement of up to 7,200 passengers (24 LRVs per hour each carrying up to 300 passengers).

• vs 23 February 2015 media release by Gladys Berejeklian

Ms Berejiklian said the CBD and South East Light Rail network will transform public transport in Sydney by providing modern and reliable services for customers, boosting the economy and cutting crippling congestion in the city. “The green light from planning means we can roll out longer light rail vehicles with more seats for customers and 50 per cent more capacity, allowing us to move up to 13,500 passengers every hour,” Ms Berejiklian said

• = A false statement in direct conflict with report she is referring to and the approval report she also refers to

• I am one of 8 community reps for the project and am attempting to ensure the facts are put out for people to make their own minds up about. That is why I have tried to use as neutral descriptions as possible rather than emotive language. The minutes for the Community Rep meeting with TfNSW are sanitised and questions asked by the reps are not recorded nor responses provided (if any) to the questions. The terms of reference (open to the public to see) for the Community Rep meetings state that all questions will be answered within a time frame yet TfNSW are refusing to do this. I have since discovered that 4 of the community reps are current employees of the State Govt and 1 is a past (self-proclaimed) senior executive of TfNSW. So not only do they not tell the truth - they have also stacked the Community Reference Group.

• http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/lctabdoc.nsf/cccc870c6126b1b6ca2571ee000318a4/6e2b81f5c474172fca257cee0023c16a?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,light*,rail* = link to index of docs produced for 1st call

• That is why there was the 2nd call for papers specifically naming the missing documents as that was the only way for the Upper House MPs to publicly state - the Govt has not provided what we asked for as they were supposedly only going to be in the 'confidential (2) boxes that the MPs could not talk about after looking at. By making the 2nd call for papers stating the docs not provided in the 1st call they made it public. The outcome they expected was what ended up happening.

So how this should this be reflected?

A M R Sydney (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Breach of 3 Revert Rule

Regrettably your decision not to heed the advice to consider the 3 revert rule and consensus policies has resulted in administrator intervention being having to be sought. Mo7838 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I did take note of the advice and did heed it. I did not create a false ID. The 3 reversions took place over nearly 40 hours, which although somewhat pedantic is not 3 in 24 hours - The 3R Rule was not breached.

The last reversion happened as an editor deleted what an independent editor had reverted accusing me of having done it. I had not done it so I felt it was justified -as I had noted all this on that editor's talk page - to revert that editor's deletion.A M R Sydney (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at CBD and South East Light Rail. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 22:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Going to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the apparent sockpuppet I witnessed on that page but I would strongly encourage you to not use multiple accounts, you'll get blocked from the site indefinitely! Swarm ^X 22:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Light rail and other things

AMR, I understand you're currently blocked and so we can wait to have a more detailed discussion about your edits and other things. But you seemed confused by some of the instances where people have reverted your additions, suggesting political bias and maliciousness rather than seeking to understanding your own policy and guideline breaches that were the real reason your edits were reverted.

In particular, you need to be careful about primary sources. Simply citing a section from Hansard or a motion in Parliament isn't sufficient - those are primary sources and the conclusions you draw (thinly veiled, especially given your commentary on other talk pages) are original research. We need secondary sources, and from newspapers and books, not commentary from non-notable action groups.

As a self-professed member of a stakeholder group, you have a vested interest in ensuring that group's opinions are made public. Those interests don't necessarily align with Wikipedia's goal which is to provide neutrally written and well-sourced encyclopedic information for readers. Wikipedia is not a political battleground and we have plenty of ways of preventing it from becoming one. Beyond you personal obligations and ethics (which are your business), Wikipedia doesn't print original thought or insider information. That your group is unhappy with the Government is irrelevant. It is not Wikipedia's job to "expose" the Government - if that is your purpose then you are in the wrong place.

If you continue down this path you will simply find yourself blocked again and again and again. Without consensus, your edits will likely be reverted. I'm happy to do what I can to help but you need to be willing to function cooperatively with others. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer Stalwart. The blockage stops me editing the Article page. I have attempted to be open about my edits by identifying myself and being honest. I am not on a crusade against this Govt per se - I just want accurate information available to the users of Wikipedia. I do not like misleading or selective information portrayed as the 'full story'. The article was in this form when I began updating in the last couple of weeks.

I am a resident in the Eastern Suburbs and attended TfNSW information sessions where again I identified my background as a wholesale fund manager who has invested/analysed infrastructure projects since 1986. I was the first private fund manager to be given money to manage on behalf of the State Govt (then Liberal/Nats) on 1.12.1988.

I did not propose myself as an elected community rep as set up by TfNSW. A number of other people at the meetings put me forward for the role. I do live in Randwick City Council's area and the closest (as crow flies) to the route is 1.1km but am not a member of any of those community groups others added or I added to "Criticism" - so am I really a self-professed member of a stakeholder group?

I am pleased to see that MO7838 reinstated 2,299 characters of the 3,885 deleted and acknowledging that it had secondary sources - this is a positive sign. I will search for secondary sources about the 2x 'Call for Papers' - would this alter your view that the material is not appropriate?

With primary sources It states "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4]"

I considered this aspect carefully and I thought outlined in a neutral way the attempt by every Upper House party, bar the Govt, sought to get the detailed information released to the community (as I did concerning capacity where the media release and verbatim quoting disagrees with the material supposedly being quoted by the media release). Can you suggest how to make or reword it could be considered suitable? Please read what was just reverted by MO7838 as it provides some background/precedents for the call. The cited material for RCC has quotes where RCC specifically raise the lack of transparency.

In this specific paragraph, if you have a look at my attempt today to rectify concerns (and revert edit that alleged SockPuppet which is not true) I went to the deleting editor's talk page and answered the allegation and also answered the concerns previously written about on the talk page. As it stood - I had not made 3 reversions within 24 hours but had within around 40 hours.

Cannot the admin editors check the IP address of the editors - that will prove I am do not have more than one account open -ie: I am not editor Cantabriensis nor the previous editor repeatedly deleted in full, Jswd.

I do think it is important that the article does not solely reflect the Govt's POV on the project. The bulk of information is direct cut & pastes of the TfNSW reports, media releases or articles that have taken verbatim from the TfNSW media releases. Is that not exhibiting bias? To clarify - if you want to pick any area to query then I will locate where it was cut & paste from.

Please compare my reversion and addition of independent secondary sources cited in support of the Criticism section. If you look back around 25/26 January a different editor attempted (admittedly too verbosely) to add in criticisms which were deleted in full - did not follow WP guidelines of editing in first instance. Subsequent entry of long term editor Mitch Ames saw Criticism section reinstated and a summary of the verbose version added.

My point is that some editors are methodically deleting any information that is perceived as not positive about the project, other editors appear to be taking the reasons provided at face value (benefit of doubt goes both ways I suppose).

With my blockage today the request to be blocked was made at 27 February 2015 at 09:10 (WP notification) whereas the editor left me a message alleging 3R seven minutes later 27 February 2015 at 09:17. The editor did not give me a chance to respond.

That editor also selectively quoted my edits to talk pages. None of my attempts to resolve the issues were reported. For example I responded to an attempt by WWGB (+ve move by LT editor) on my talk page and replied in their terms. I had not claimed the Govt lied (emotive) but had presented the evidence for people to draw their own conclusions in the article. My response to WWGB used the editor's terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_M_R_Sydney#February_2015 Hi, as per my comments on the article talk page, I think this whole standing order issue is a dead horse. The LC asked for material, the government said everything was produced. I really can't see the problem, unless you are suggesting the government lied - a very big call! Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes you got it - the Govt lied. See the talk page for CSELR (OK, I'm lazy and not typing current page name!). They provided a business case summary but not a business case that the summary was created from. I have provided the link to the index of papers produced (mainly email acceptances/rejections of meeting appointments btw) so you can confirm that the Business case was never provided. There are no source documents for any figure contained in the Business Case Summary. Some of the numbers are shown as incorrect from prior and post-TfNSW publications (such as with the Capacity claimed by GB on the MR for the Modification Approval yet the actual modification report states figures that are 50% lower.).

• source Final SSI 6042 MOD 1 Secretary's Assessment Report_Feb 2015.pdf (5.536 MB)

The assessment undertaken by TfNSW based the capacity of the light rail service on the provision of up to 8,620 passengers per hour as part of normal operations in future years"

• Modification Report Dec 2014

WWGB has not had a chance to respond as yet.

Nor has The Drover's Wife.

Thank you for getting involved.A M R Sydney (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The cornerstone of Wiki is gaining consensus policy. Even if you are right and other editors are wrong, it needs to stand, without the whole project falls over. There are avenues to take things up the chain, if an editor feels sufficiently aggrieved, but until a decision comes from this process, then the consensus needs to stand.

Yes there is a facility for admin to search from which IP addresses posts have been made. But is not foolproof, savvy evaders quickly work out they just need to post from separate IP addresses, not hard with Wi-Fi hotspots. Fortunately there are other ways.

You stated in this post [1] that you have been 'trying for over a year to provide some balance', yet this account has only been active for eight days. So presumably you posted under another account. There is no problem in setting up another account, you may well have forgotten the password. But in the interests of goodfaith you should probably disclose your previous identity.

That User:Jswd was making posts along the same lines to yours, disappeared a month ago and then makes a single post to an unrelated article within the last 24 hours, does look suspiciously like an editor trying to fool an IP check. Mo7838 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I understand the consensus approach but if an editor is putting down false reasons for deletion (as you acknowledged implicitly by returning a large amount of the deleted text that had been referenced to secondary sources) and despite this the Drover's Wife came back and deleted another part of what you had put back declaring that the media source was not acceptable to that editor nor was RCC media releases etc. That suggests an agenda of sorts.

• I originally set up an account as ARoydhouse in Aug/Sep 2013 and attempted several times to add information which was deleted completely. When I arrived back from overseas in early February I was told that everything had been sanitised on this article again. I had a look and tried to login to edit it. My login did not work (hard drive had died in the interim may have something to do with it - not sure how WP tracks editors) so I used my initials to create a new account, A M R Sydney.

Thanks for claifying Mo7838 (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• A number of other apparent newcomers to WP have also tried to add information which has mostly been deleted with 1 to 2 hours. For people who are working and may have a go at editing on their lunch break or after work - that seems again a breech of WP rules. Virtually every deletion has been of any content added that is not positive about the project or raises issues. I agree a number of those other editors, like my first attempts, did not cite sufficiently. However they were not given the opportunity to seek the citations to fix their additions - it was just deleted. When this happened to me I wrongly thought I'd have to start from scratch to fix it - retype the lot. I suspect that is how those other editors have reacted. It is a bit daunting to have all the WP jargon thrown at you, your efforts deleted within hours if not minutes of contributing. Definitely not what WP guidelines say. But it has happened since 2013 with this article and certain editors.

• I am not Jswd nor anyone else - whoever has the power to check IPs please do and you'll see that. Just because some other people disagree when they see something does not make it SockPuppet. Reading what Jswd added (that was deleted in its entirety before LT editor Mitch Ames intervened) and googling the name of the person referred to in the referenced article suggests who that editor is - btw. I can try contacting him via APT as referenced.

• I note that Drover's Wife has subsequently deleted about 1/3rd of what you had put back up. The editor cited the media sources or RCC media releases are unsuitable but the editor has no issue with TfNSW media releases as a source nor TfNSW documents as a source. Is that not WP:Bias? The text deleted was:Randwick light rail project in deadlock Altmedia 17 JulyMayoral Minutes 29 April 2014 Randwick City CouncilCouncil Meeting Minutes 22 July 2014 Randwick City CouncilCouncil Meeting Minutes 24 February 2015 Randwick City Council
• Here is another media source, The Telegraph reporting on the rejection by RCC - that should satisfy the editor I hope, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/randwick-council-fails-to-agree-on-development-agreement-with-transport-for-nsw/story-fngr8h22-1227039743099 or this one http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/more-details-revealed-about-the-cbd-and-south-east-light-rail-project-but-community-still-want-answers/story-fngr8h22-1227111251606 or this one Liberals break ranks and take stand against their own State ...

The Daily Telegraph-15 Jun 2014 ... the Liberal ranks taking a stand against their own State Government ... Liberal councillors are promising to vote against signing the light rail . A M R Sydney (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Response

Generally, you're having the problem that you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia's sourcing policies. The sort of story you want to tell you either need to tell on your own, or take to a journalist: when it's reported, as an actual story, in reliable sources, then you can tell it here. You can't do your own investigative reporting and cite it on Wikipedia - it's explicitly barred and always has been. A reliable source has to make the connections you want to make before you can cite it here. It may be accurate (I have no idea, the Sydney stuff sounds a bit suss) but it is original research and Synthesis as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

This also applies to the criticism section. So long as the section outlines criticism in reliable sources, I've got no problem with it: what was there before is a good example of it, and the first three seem similarly legit. But you can't cite Randwick council record in this way (if not even the local suburban paper cares, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia), Altmedia is a questionably reliable source and not something on which you should cite a disputed topic, and explicitly citing parliamentary resolutions to make a point which nobody is reporting on is, again, not allowed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not attempting to tell a story but to portray a balanced article showing all points of view rather than the project provider's view of the world. WP explicitly states that Primary sources MAY be used - they are not banned. Secondary sources are preferable - so I have provided secondary links for other components you have just deleted without giving any chance of fixing them prior to deletion - no notification as this was new text added today that you deleted. WP policy explicitly stated that deletion is the last resort not first.

Choosing which commercial media outlets are acceptable to you, a sole editor, does seem to raise WP:POV issues or bias. A commercial media organisation reporting on it satisfies WP Policy. If I am wrong can you please explain where it states you can choose which media outlets to approve or is there somewhere where Altmedia is discussed?A M R Sydney (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, you are trying to tell a story - that the Government "lied" - and you have tried to tell that story using primary sources in a way that encourages readers to think a certain way. We don't do that. We don't suggest, impugn, infer, hint-at or surmise - we effectively just regurgitate what secondary sources have said about a thing. You can use secondary sources to confirm basic facts, but I mean like the number of seats in the Legislative Council, not the meaning of a motion in the Legislative Council. For the record, I disagree with Mo7838's reinstatement of those apparently well-sourced facts. Yes, those sources verify what those groups have said/argued. But I'm not convinced that those groups are important enough (to the project, and therefore to the article) so that including them isn't a WP:WEIGHT issue. We don't need commentary from every little action group with a vested interest. The article isn't "biased" because it tells the "Government's side" of the story - it's a Government project. That there are a handful of residents who disagree with the project makes it no different to any other infrastructure project. You put a train track over the top of other things and there's always going to be someone complaining. The distinction we need to make is whether that criticism of significant. The criticism of a notable, Metropolitan-Sydney-wide action group like Save Our Suburbs is significant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

One question not addressed was how can an editor choose which commercial media outlets are acceptable? Altmedia in this case.

I did not use the terminology in the article that the Govt lied. I did provide evidence that something does not add up. The paragraph about the call for papers and the preceding criticism demonstrates that the community and their representatives at both the State and Local Level are concerned about shortcomings with the project. Including members of the same political party that is pushing it at state level. Without the paragraphs deleted the article does read as if some NIMBYs do not want their backyard changed - which is not the true issue. I am approaching this from an investment perspective and attempting to portray in as neutral a way as possible that the project numbers claimed in the media by a Govt minister do not match what documents are available. These discrepancies have caused widespread community concern from residents, business and at both State & Local Govt level.

If you reside in NSW you will be aware of the ICAC and findings of corruption or unfair practices about a number of current and previous State Govt Ministers to do with Transport & Planning. Over 15 current and former MPs have had adverse findings made about them in the last 18 months. Is WP not supposed to present a balanced rather than rose-coloured article based on facts not unsubstantiated media releases? If there are different opinions then all sides are supposed to be given relatively equal coverage.

With that in mind - how should the Call for Papers paragraph be edited to allow its inclusion?

One of those groups that disagree is the Local Government representing 150,000 residents, Randwick City Council - so I think that does make it significant. One of the other groups APT is the umbrella organisation and most quoted organisation in media articles/TV interviews on Transport issues in NSW - it is a State wide organisation. The two major print media have regularly run 400-800 word pieces based on the APT's issues raised - so I would think that also makes it significant. One of which is referenced in the Criticism section.

If the Govt Minister's media releases directly contradict the project documents then is that not an issue that is relevant to the discussion? WP is not supposed to become a conduit containing mis-information.

I note you disagreed with MO7838's reinstatement - but those secondary sources are respectively the two largest Australian Media Organisations and one of which is the world's largest media organisation (News Corp - owner of The Telegraph).A M R Sydney (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You might need to re-read my comment. I don't disagree with them because the sources are unreliable (they're okay) - I disagree with their addition because Wikipedia is not a local newspaper that publishes details of every local community group that disagrees with every infrastructure project.

And again, we regurgitate what reliable sources say, we don't publish the truth, the "truth" or the WP:TRUTH. If your aim is to find a platform where you can "inform" the public or "balance" the argument then you're in the wrong place. Your "evidence" is what we would call "original research" which means you have drawn the conclusion (or you are - wink, wink - encouraging the public to drawn that conclusion) - that "something doesn't add up". Sorry, we don't do that. When the Sydney Morning Herald or the Daily Telegraph run the front page headline, "Something doesn't add up", then we can say the same here. Perhaps not front page, but you get my drift.

The "call for papers paragraph" should be edited to include a Sydney Morning Herald citation that says, "something doesn't add up". And if you can't find one, we shouldn't be adding that paragraph at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A reason Hansard can be unreliable is that its is covered by parliamentary privilege. If you fed some information to a member who spoke of it in the house in one of those sessions where three members are present (two of whom are asleep) and if gains no media coverage, the government may let it slide unchallenged. However if you presented it to a major media organisation, they would require something more substantial than just your word before publishing. So in effect Wiki piggybacks off the internal controls of these organisations.

I would also strongly suggest you drop off with your conspiracy theories about other editors having agendas. It is pissing editors off in a major way, it is now time to drop the stick. Mo7838 (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)