Talk:Michael Sessions

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

Aggressive deletion of unflattering information[edit]

Users have been deleting entire sections of notable, factual, and well-sourced material. Here is a list of some information that has been deleted in the past few weeks:

  • Former city councilman Jeff Buchhop's recall drive (following Sessions' no contest plea to malicious annoyance by writing charge).
  • Sessions' endorsement of Tony Vear's 2009 campaign for mayor and campaigning on his behalf (hosting events, speaking to the media, etc.)

198.109.220.247 9 October 2009

Controversy - criminal charges, conviction and recall effort[edit]

Whole sections are getting deleted. This stuff is factual and supported by links. Not liking something is not a legitimate reason for deletion 07:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)~KM

It seems the mayor's supporters are attempting to re-write history. 64.179.49.62 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Actually, he was sworn in on the 21st and conducted his first meeting that evening. The recount request was rescinded. -Aimee England, Hillsdale, MI

Not the Mayor yet[edit]

I see someone has added this article to Category:Leaders of cities in Michigan. I removed it because he is not the mayor yet. This election is so close, there could be a recount. - Hoshie | 17:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I think it should because he was elected mayor. He will be inaugurated on the 21st. And I believe the deadline for a recount is already up(last Friday I thought). 12.220.47.145 22:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It ends tonight and its 4:50 right now. It seems unlikely though that there will be a recount and it will likely be looked down upon in the small city. Newbie222 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sessions will be sworn in on November 21st. Ingles has asked for a recount, but it will take place after the 21st. So regardless of what way that goes, Sessions will be the Mayor for a period of time. Jeff King Hillsdale MI 208.187.92.24 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plea bargain[edit]

Can Faecak provide an explanation for why this section was deleted?

In return for the plea, prosecutors dropped a more serious felony charge that Sessions had illegally accessed his campaign manager's MySpace and America Online accounts to delete his lists of personal contacts with their addresses and phone numbers.

--Nucleusboy 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I look forward to seeing the rationale for deleting this article. --Nucleusboy 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deleting this article as this is the biography of a real person and the only reason being given is displeasure of the information concerning the person in general. Everything is acurate, Michael has apologized, and his record wiped clean. The article must stay! --(LuvataciousSkull 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm against deleting this article. Everything is accurate and as best I can determine, fair. There has been a continuing problem of vandelism on this page (3 deletion rule) since information was posted about the trouble this party got into. I see this AfD as a continuation of this. 69.95.183.200 03:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was closed as a 'Keep', but the discuss related to it is available here: Michael Sessions AfD Discussion Kirksmonkey 13:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLPC[edit]

-- Can User Dhartung cite some specific uncited/unveribiable "attacks" or "negativity"? Being this article is under AfD review, the BLPC is premature, and in any case, I don't see it. But look forward to your rationale here. 69.95.183.200 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLPC and AFD have no direct relationship and there is no precedent that being in an open AFD means that a BLPC is unwarranted. It is simply a request for an administrator experienced in BLP matters to have a look at the article. I make no judgement because I know too little about the subject, but this looks like a well over 50% negative article and probably fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight, as noted in the AFD. Given that an adminsitrator should be the one to make the determination, I'm restoring the tag. Given that you feel the article is already balanced, you should have no problem with another set of eyes. It's a CHECK. --Dhartung | Talk 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If all your where asking for was an administrator to look at it, you're right, I'd have no problem with this. But you state in the notice: "Questionable un-sourced material about living persons should be deleted. Anyone can do this." and given this page's history of recent deletion vandalism, that is what I primarly object to (other then it is also redundant with a AfD in place). Lets see how it goes, but I see little basis for what you are are asking for, in particular since you admit you have little knowledge on the subject. A few minutes on Google would have verified most if not all of the citations. Most of the comments on the related AfD report also confirm this. But your the veteran, I'm not, so lets see what happens. 64.179.49.62

There's nothing left unsourced in the Controversy section. Should the template come down now? --Nucleusboy 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think(?)that is the admin call. I touched up one quote based on your citation, in that the newspaper said Sessions told them the matter was expunged, not the court. I've found another citation from the proscuetor that says he is dropping the pending charges as probation was completed, which is not the same thing as "expunged". Not doubting, just nothing to reference from a reliable source that the matter was actually expunged. But will wait a few days to see if someone comes up with something before adding the citation from the proscutor Kirksmonkey 00:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked into the Expungement claim. I think the citation that he said it was accurate, but at least according to Michigan law, an expungment can't occur until at least 5 year waiting period after the conviction, and it has to be petitioned for. Something is fishy. See: Michigan Compiled Law MCL 780.621(3)
Kirksmonkey 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted on the BLP noticeboard for someone to come by and give their sense as to whether my concerns are justified. I did say that editors have made good faith efforts to further source the problematic material. I appreciate that the underlying issues are being addressed, but I still have a concern regarding whether the incidents are given undue weight in regards to the amount of material presented. I live in a small city, and I know how local politics can go -- especially since I've also lived in a large city. People go overboard on stuff sometimes. Maybe a wording change or two would help for someone like me who isn't in the milieu. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I can see what you are saying to some degree, but do remember the criminal charges/recall story is/was still developing as you filed your BLP notice. Once things settle down, as they appear to be in the process of, I can see some consolidation might be in order, although it is my personal opinion, that you cannot provide too much (factual and citable) information to the people on any active politician, small town or not. It would be helpful if you made some specific suggestions for change as to your perspective. You also have to remember you walked into a wiki that was being vandalized (the sections you are expressing your concerns on being deleted without cause) and that an apparent baseless AfD had been filed.
Bottom line, you have no dispute from me the recent events being reported are negative, but as best I can determine they are being reported accurately from cited sources. Beyond some consolidation, I can't see deleting anything if the Wiki wishes to remain an accurate information source. Criminal charges for any sitting politician are a big deal, the voters/media need to know background on their potential leaders, and I've checked other politicians who have had brushes with the law, and what I am seeing here is (relatively) consistent beyond perhaps some consolidation. But this time it is the admins that need to make the call, not the community as in the previous AfD complaint. Regards Kirksmonkey 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Sessions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Sessions&oldid=1208370622"