Saturday, May 21, 2016

For Great Justice!

From: Unblock Review Team <>
Date: 21 May 2016 at 5:39:41 AM AEST
To: chris.sherlock79 at
Subject: Response to unblock appeal #15811

This is a reply to your Wikipedia unblock appeal from TParis, a Wikipedia administrator. DO NOT reply to this email - it is coming from an unattended email address.

Hello Letsbefiends,

The primary issue appears to be your misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. All material hosting on Wikipedia needs to have gone through published secondary sources before we'll cover it. The only material we'll include as a primary source is information on a person's identity; such as: race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The diffs you were gathering appears to be opposition research and it appears that you may have a personal connection. To the blocking administrator, that makes it seem like you have an axe to grind. It's one thing to include secondary sources to improve the encyclopedia. It's another thing to gather primary sources to use Wikipedia to 'get the word out' about someone you consider to be a bad person.

Whatever your intent for doing the things that you did, we cannot get inside your head. We can't know what you really intend or intended to do. All we can do is make a judgement based on your actions. Even if you said it was not your intention, we can't know the truth of that. All we have are the diffs to go by. To be unblocked, you'd have to say you'd come off the subject or approach the dispute from another angle within policy.

As you aren't asking to be unblocked, I'm going to close this ticket. I hope this gives you closure.


English Wikipedia Administrator

The primary issue appears to be your misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. 
OK then.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. All material hosting on Wikipedia needs to have gone through published secondary sources before we'll cover it.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

"WP:PRIMARY" redirects here. For the article naming guideline, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I'm not entirely sure I'm following... but all right then. Next...
The only material we'll include as a primary source is information on a person's identity; such as: race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Avoid misuse of primary sources

Further information: WP:PRIMARY
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[4]

Must have read that wrong, he's saying something that look like it's violating the Biography of Living Person's policy. Hang on...
The only material we'll include as a primary source is information on a person's identity; such as: race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully

Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles.
Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.
  • An article about the conquest of the hypothetical country above: The proclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for a simple description of the proclamation, including its size, whether it was written in blackletter calligraphy, whether it is signed or has an official seal, and what words, dates, or names were on it. Anyone should be able to look at an image of the proclamation and see that it was all written on one page, whether it used that style of calligraphy, and so forth. However, the proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors.
  • An article about a novel: The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, the number of chapters, or other contents in the book: Any educated person can read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and discover that the main character's name is Elizabeth or that there are 61 chapters. It is not an acceptable source for claims about book's style, themes, foreshadowing, symbolic meaning, values, importance, or other matters of critical analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: No one will find a direct statement of this material in the book.
  • An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation.
  • An article about a painting: The painting itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. Any educated person can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's Cow Skull: Red, White, and Blue, and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: Looking at the painting does not tell anyone why the artist chose these colors, whether she meant to evoke religious or patriotic sentiments, or what motivated the composition.
  • An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.
  • An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective comparison claims ("OurCo is the oldest widget business in Smallville" or "OurCo sells more widgets than anyone else in New Zealand"). It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").
‡ ^ A person's or an organization's website could contain some secondary material about itself, although this is not very common. Such material would still be self-published as well as first-party/affiliated/non-independent material, and thus would still be subject to restrictions in how you can use it.

Hang about, didn't he say that primary sources can only be "information on a person's identity; such as: race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc"? (and why "sexual orientation"?)

So in other words, the following is not allowed?

Researched information

I have put together quite a bit of information about the subject. See below. - Letsbefiends (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Please don't collapse this. It took me a lot of time to gather this material and collapsing it makes it unnecessarily difficult to view it. - (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


OK, so these are developments he owns. They've all been controversial one way or another. - (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Owns/owned (through Mehajer Bros Pty Ltd) 3 Mary St, Auburn
    • There is a DA for this property according to a DA search on Auburn Council's website - DA-416/2011, DA is for "Minor internal alterations and fit out works to existing educational establishment." Applicant is 288 Capital Pty Ltd (ABN 87 123 073 138, ACN 123 073 138) and approved on 21/12/2011...
    • No council meeting minutes!!!
    • Klan, Anthony (19 March 2016). "Salim Mehajer eyes $7m property sale jackpot". The Australian.
So with this one, it's what got him suspended from council. He didn't disclose ownership of this but passed council business, which is what the tribunal found he did wrong because he was bound to get a substantial material gain from it. - (talk)

Development Applications

  • 13-21 John St, Lidcombe
    • DA-119/2012:
      • Owner: Auburn City Council
      • Applicant: Sydney Constructions & Developers Pty Ltd and Mr S Mehajer (Selim Mehajer)
      • Auburn Council 21 November 2012 Meeting Minutes, Information Report – JRPP - 13-21 John Street, Lidcombe, Page 6
      • Auburn Council 21 November 2012 Business Paper, Information Report – JRPP - 13-21 John Street, Lidcombe, Page 29
  • 36-44 John St, Lidcombe:
    • DA294/2014 (JRPP No: 2014SYW140 DA)
      • Applicant: Sydney Project Group
      • Owner: Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd, S.E.T Services Pty Ltd
      • Proposed development: Construction of a 12 storey mixed use development comprising 153 residential units, 16 commercial units with 4 levels of basement parking and 241 car spaces
      • Cover Sheet
      • Remediation plan, commissioned by SM Engineering and Constructions Pty Ltd
      • Approved: 4 June 2015

Salim Mehajer home

  • 14 Frances St, Lidcombe
    • DA-79/2009:
      • Granted 9 June 2009
        • There are no minutes for this meeting!!!
    • DA-79/2009/B:
    • DA-232/2008:
      • Granted 28 November 2008
        • There are no minutes for this meeting!!!
        • Council under delegated authority approved Development Application Number 232/2008 for demolition of existing dwelling, removal of a tree and construction of two storey dwelling house with basement carpark, a front fence, an outbuilding and a BBQ facility subject to conditions. Business Paper, Page 299
    • DA-232/2008/E:
      • Application: Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd
      • Owner: Salim Mehajer
      • 19 November Business Paper, Page 299
      • Section 96(1A) modification to increase height of lift and stair overruns and for changes to internal layout of dwelling.
      • Rescinded! - meeting minutes 3 December 2014, only one opposed Clr. Oldfield
    • DA-232/2008/F:
      • Applicant: Advanced International Developments Pty Ltd
      • Owner: Salim Mehajer
      • Auburn Independent Assessment Panel Meeting, 6 April 2016, Page 4
      • "The subject Section 96(1A) application DA-232/2008/F is lodged to the Council for determination for modifications to approved plans associated with DA-232/2008 to increase height of rear and side boundary fences to 2.1m (from 1.8m), and replace approved grass in the nature strip outside the front of the property with artificial grass" - refused

Council Car Park

  • 13 John St, Lidcombe
    • Sale clause was in 333/11 of council minutes of 16 November 2011:
      • "In the event that the Purchaser does not obtain the Development Consent for the subject property and the adjoining property within eighteen (18) months from the date hereof then either party may be at liberty to rescind this contract whereupon the provisions of Clause 19 shall apply"
      • "That Simon Diab & Associates on behalf of Sydney Constructions & Developments Pty Limited be advised of Council’s decision."
    • In the council Business Paper for their meeting 21 November, it states that:
      • "Sydney Constructions and Developments Pty Limited (Purchaser) submitted Development Application 119/2012 (DA) on 20 April 2012, for a mixed use development over the properties at 15, 19 and 21 John Street and Council’s open car park at 13 John Street Lidcombe. The DA is being assessed externally by a Planning Consultant and will be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel." (Background, page 125)
    • Council chooses to rescind sale to original purchaser and sells car park to Sydney Constructions and Developments Pty Ltd for $6.5 million (see 300A/12 of Council meeting minutes for 5 December 2012).
    • Request is made to reduce the holding deposit for the sale of the Car Park, which is discussed under closed session on 20 November 2013, on the grounds that open discussion would "contain information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business".
    • Council decides to reduce the deposit to 5% - or $325,000 (see C039/13 of Council minutes of meeting held 4 December 2013)
      • Note! I cannot find item C038/13 which was rescinded! There appears to be a set of meeting minutes missing...
    • On 11 December 2013, Clr Simms attempts to rescind reduction in holding deposit, C040/13 but motion is lost (For: Councillors Campbell, Batik, Oldfield and Simms; Against: Zraika, Attie, Lam, Oueik, and Yang).
The council car park was very controversial. See-Win won it initially, but asked for more time. Council rescinded the contract though. But when Mehajer asked to reduce his holding deposit by half, it was initially opposed and then pushed through by the other councillors. I distinct;y remember press at the time commenting on this, I'll have to see if I can find it. - (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

In the news

His home

Property development and Auburn City Council

Changing the Auburn LEP

Police investigations/Court cases/Tribunals

  • Brook, Benedict (5 May 2016). "Salim Mehajer praises wife but singles out another for a special thank you". The former deputy mayor of western Sydney’s Auburn Council is being taken to court by metal and aluminium fabricators Iron World to get back $46,000 the business claims it is owed for work on a luxury marble staircase installed in Mr Mehajer’s Lidcombe home, reports the Daily Telegraph. “We have done work before (for Mr Mehajer) and got paid but the last invoice just before the wedding we could not get the money,” Iron World business owner Sam Obeid said. “He is just delaying, that is all — we know every time he promises, promises and then nothing happens ... We need to pay our suppliers,” reported the Telegraph.

Hangin' with celebrities



  • Sydney Building Developments Pty Ltd
    Life in the Fast Lane (PDF)The Australian, retrieved 2016-05-12
  • Oz Buildings & Constructions Pty Ltd
    Life in the Fast Lane (PDF)The Australian, retrieved 2016-05-12

  • No comments:

    Post a Comment