Talk:Bill Wilson (judge)

First offer to resign

The cited sentence about Wilson's first offer to resign being rejected by the government has been removed a couple of times by an anonymous editor. It's a cited statement to a reliable source and its neutrally worded, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Surely if it is reported that a judge offered to resign but the government rejected the initial offer, it is a relevant detail to include in the article. It's significant as this was the first instance of its kind in NZ. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it troubling that you can't talk about your revisions before you make them. You had the good sense to discuss why you wanted to make the changes, but you made them anyway. You seem to be an administrator, so I think this makes it even more unprofessional. If you are in a rush to keep the article in a particular format, let me know why. Feel free to revert your actions if you think, with hindsight, they were inappropriate.

When you introduced the article, you made various incorrect statements about the situation around his resignation - including that he owed money to opposing council. This is absolutely incorrect, and clearly paints a negative view of Mr Wilson. He is a living person, so WP:BLP as always applies. When I came across the article, I was slightly concerned by its inaccuracies, and overhauled the content significantly. To your credit, most of the additions I made were to things added subsequent to your creation.

We are discussing the fact that you are reluctant to remove a reference to the fact that the Ministry of Justice refused an earlier offer of resignation. Originally, you had juxtaposed this point against the amount that he was paid when he finally did resign - the innuendo being that he had asked the Government for more money the first time around. Now that this passage has been removed, the innuendo is no longer present, and the passage is now irrelevant. That is why I removed it. You have stated that it is sourced and neutrally worded. Just because something was reported on does not mean it is relevant to the article. Could the article exist in a full and comprehensive way without including this fact? I think it absolutely can. It is incidental to the resignation process, and does not add or compliment any other part of the article. I would also disagree with the fact that it is neutrally worded - omissions are just as glaring as actions. Wilson has spoken about the context in which he resigned at length in this article and it would appear that any previous offer he had made would have involved the clearing of his name. However, because that is not clear, I did not modify the wording. Instead, as it no longer served as relevant, I removed it. The entire resignation process is the first of its kind in New Zealand as well. That does not mean every aspect of it is relevant - especially one absolutely incidental to the process, like he had offered the Government one deal before he took another. I think it is not notable, and I don't think you have a basis to readd it. Feel free to actually explain your reasoning, otherwise I expect that you will revert your latest revision.

(Just to be clear, as you seemed to chuckle that I was referring to him as Mr Wilson on your talk page, I am currently doing a research assignment on the JCC&JCPA, and noticed that the article was in rather bad shape. I have never met the man and am in no way connected to him.) 27.252.193.27 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're reading waaaaayyyy too much into things, seeing innuendos and suggestions where none were intended. The NZ Herald article states that Wilson's terms were rejected "because the terms he wanted were too great. ... [The AG] would not say whether it was unacceptable for financial reasons or other matters." It simply doesn't say one way or the other. Wikipedia generally reports on what reliable sources have reported, not on what editors think is important or unimportant. The offer to resign and rejection was reported in the media, and was controversial and an important part of the process, so it's fair to regard it as something that the WP article should include. As for my actions, I am merely restoring the status quo ante of the article before you removed it—you are the (anonymous) editor who is removing cited material from the article, so unless you can gain a consensus that doing so is correct, it's fair for me to restore the information. You didn't bring up the issue for discussion before you removed it—in fact your edit summaries went on at some length about defamation and speculating as to Wilson's inner desires, which of course we know nothing about (unless you have inside information, which you claim not to). So I see a bit of pot/kettle situation in your accusations about acting without discussing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)