This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force. University of California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Stanford University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: State Legislatures Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures.

The bias of the moderators on this page is absolutely unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8C7E:F59E:5DA4:A3F9:B296:E216 ( talk) 18:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Your edit warring and tendentious editing are harder to believe. I locked the page to force you to come to the talk page so we can try to find WP:CONSENSUS on what to include, if anything. Mind WP:BLP and WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION before proposing any text additions here. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no edit warning, or tendentious editing coming from my side; which to most people would be obvious. Further I would urge you to keep the lock on the page to support your ridiculous bias because as soon as July 25th rolls around it's getting reverted to what is ACTUALLY happening, not just the way a bunch of smug over sensitive progressive adult toddlers stamping their feet are perceiving it to happen. Your intervention in this is nothing more than throwing around weight because of who you are in the "wiki" community. It's absolutely absurd and a complete disgrace. Hope you're proud of yourself, sweetie. If you or anyone else had a problem with it, they were free to edit the and or add/ delete sources, or take it here for discussion, not completely remove the entire section because they are offended. There are MORE than enough sources covering the entire situation, so your "consensus" means nothing. This is the perfect example of what makes Wikipedia trash. Good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8C7E:F59E:7078:B396:3031:E5E2 ( talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply

You are edit warring. The content is not neutral. This cannot stand. We need to find a compromise. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The content in question has an obvious POV slant and does not represent its own sources fairly. It is unsuitable for a BLP, or for any Wikipedia article. Frankly, it does a disservice to those who have argued for the murals to stay. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The content stated is factualy responsible. How it is read is up to the reader. Insinuating a slant shows the bias of an individual reader in an attempt to hide factual information. It can definitely be rewritten in a more precise manner, but for the most part I agree with IP. Further, edit warring is being perpetuated by the individuals attacking the content, not by the individual that posted it; which stood for some time before an editor with a clear bias took offence. Both of you should be ashamed of your behaivior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.195.215 ( talk) 13:56, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

The text that you are edit warring to include is so biased as to be non-factual. It is absolutely unacceptable as you add it, and therefore will continue to be reverted. If you want to see something on this included, you need to engage in discussion here on how it is to be included. Your behavior is not getting you what you want. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not sure if I'm the "editor with a clear bias" being referred to, but I'll weigh in anyway. I first came upon this article about a month ago when adding a link from the Honey Mahogany article, as she works as Haney's legislative aide. I then reviewed this article's history and noted the previous reversion (on June 25 by editor Kerrick Staley) of the edit regarding the mural. That revert was undone the following day by another IP editor. I removed the wording about the mural (which had been moved to another section in the interim) on July 10. I did so because of the biased tone and unencylopedic nature of the edit, not any personal interest or involvement in the controversy over the mural; I am a San Francisco resident, but am not in Haney's district, and knew nothing about him before my edits to his aide's article.

That brings us up to the current edit war. In any case, I agree with Muboshgu that the onus is on the editor(s) desiring inclusion of this content to come up with acceptable wording. Funcrunch ( talk) 22:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Matthaneysf.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply