Jump to content

Talk:Mike Lawler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:8003:3fb4:cf00:6d89:d2c0:b47c:f4a4 (talk) at 11:22, 11 March 2024 (Revert not about this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Orphaned references in Mike Lawler

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mike Lawler's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "generalresults":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ban section

I have removed the ban section per WP:BLP. The story and the removed wiki text says he was banned for COI, which is not true. He was banned because he needs to verify the username isn't being impersonated. While he was notified about potential COI, the ban notice is very easy to read and was not for COI. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section had a citation. https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-lawmaker-mike-lawler-banned-from-wikipedia-for-self-editing-spree. Meresquared (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has a citation, that has verifiably false information in it. We can all read the ban notice on the talk page in question, and it was not for conflict of interest. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taken together with the reverted edits I think it's fairly obvious the ban notice is insufficient in detail. Meresquared (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Michaelvlawler Meresquared (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But there is a single source, with provably false information fundamental to the story. That does not comply with BLP. Its possible that the author of the story could fix the information, and then end up with a much less juicy story "warned for possible COI, had some edits removed, and then later banned because they didn't correctly verify their username". That might pass the V/BLP muster, but probably runs into undue for a single source reporting on something almost inconsequential, 2 years after the fact. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also understand people coming to Wikipedia to add this because it's about Wikipedia. It's navel gazing. This is a minor incident that does not need to be mentioned at all (save the press and connected contributor templates above on the talk page), let alone given a level two section heading in article space. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources cited in the latest revert: one generally unreliable, one questionable, one generally reliable. I would still consider the information WP:UNDUE (at this time). Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is speccifically denoted as not being a reliable source, how can you say it's verifiably false? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia is "generally unreliable", not "always unreliable". It could be used for WP:ABOUTSELF info, though I wouldn't recommend it. Second, the unreliability of Wikipedia doesn't mean that other sources reporting about it aren't also wrong. For instance Daily Beast article says that the user was "banned", but that's not true, because the user was indeffed only for his username, not because of COI editing. Third, this doesn't really address why we should even be including this info on the first place. There are a myriad of users who have attempted to edit their own Wikipedia articles; why is it noteworthy that this particular individual may have (not definitively did) edit his own page? Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the original beast article has now been updated to be less inaccurate. The other two stories are just quoting the (inaccurate version of the) beast article. They do not add anything to V/BLP, but might possibly contribute to notability. However, I still think undue at this time ResultingConstant (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight that a sitting Congressman edits his own page to burnish his record and achievements? Five different news outlets have seen fit to cover it. Meresquared (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I count one (The Daily Beast) and some echo chamber websites repeating it. Notable people often edit their own Wiki articles, and it does not merit a section in those either. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem like good enough sourcing. dailybeast ain't great for primary BLP sourcing. Cononsense (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Cononsense and @Muboshgu - we need a better source than the Daily Beast and mirror websites. That's an assumption made by the Daily Beast, but it was never actually confirmed that Lawler edited his own article. If User:Michaelvlawler is indeed the congressman, he apparently wasn't able to convince an administrator of his identity.
Even if the congressman did operate that account (something we, again, don't have proof of), it is not really noteworthy to mention that Lawler edited his own Wikipedia page unless his edits have long-term significance. Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better sources are picking it up, now. Warrenmck (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately. Intelligencer is also misstating the reasons for the account's block (A New York congressman had his personal account blocked on Wikipedia after making too many edits to his own page, when in fact the account was blocked purely because of its username.)
Also, User talk:Michaelvlawler was unblocked a few minutes ago by Tamzin, who gave a more detailed explanation of the unblock on the user's talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I know someone at one of the publications in question, so I've reached out to see if they have any interest in correcting/updating their story. Guess we'll see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above, it seems like a good time to interject the listings of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources for readers and editors that are going to come to this page to shore up support for whatever side of the political spectrum they are on. --P37307 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, considering that you are a more experienced user than I, there are over 20 news articles about the Wikipedia ban. It is not simply a minor incident and this is the most coverage he has gotten in his capacity as a Congressman. I would appreciate if you could explain to me why the Wikipedia ban should not be on his page. Johnghan1111 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't banned. With respect, read the discussion above. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provide them here, then. Just saying there are 20 news articles is not enough. Those articles will be compared with reliable sources plus article content and the community will decide on a consensus since objections to including the Wikipedia editing topic is in motion. P37307 (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, see WP:DAILYBEAST on our Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. The Daily Beast is color-coded yellow due to lack of consensus regarding reliability. This note is included:
  • "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.
There have been 5 different previous discussions of the Daily Beast's reliability: 1 2 3 4 5
- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this thread is about if the reported WP-whatever should be mentioned in the article, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS it should not. See also WP:NAVELGAZING and for some WP:OTHERSTUFF there is Talk:Emily_St._John_Mandel#RFC:_attempt_to_correct_the_Wikipedia_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that this isn't quite due for inclusion here. This might be a matter for inclusion on the (relatively new) List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia instead? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ban rescinded, explicitly "not for cause"

Per the unban notice, the ban was explicitly "not for cause", so is completely not notable, regardless of what tabloid-ish wonk sources write, except to show how unreliable such sources are. He was warned for COI, but that also seems small potatoes for a biography. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a ban, it was a block. They are not the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Even more so. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am the blocking administrator. This was not a ban in any way, shape or form. It was a commonplace soft block of an editor with a username matching a well known person. These soft blocks are intended to prevent impersonation of well known people. I have made many such blocks over the years. Editors who are soft blocked like this can either verify their identity as has been done in this case, or register a new account under an acceptable username. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

Under tenure, add a section about Lawler's Wikipedia editing scandal. It has generated significant media attentionhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-lawmaker-mike-lawler-banned-from-wikipedia-for-self-editing-spree. It has certainly gotten more attention than the other parts of his bio. Johnghan1111 (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. edit requests are meant for noncontroversial requests. As there is active discussion above, which you have begun to participate in, an edit request is premature Cannolis (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"MAGA Mike" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA Mike has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 31 § MAGA Mike until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Lawler&oldid=1213153772"