Talk:Geraint Davies (Labour politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Just in case anyone is wondering...

The subject of the autobiography was banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for writing material about himself. This was after being blocked for 24 hours and the admin ([User:BrownHairedGirl]) deciding that waiting less than 1 hour was enough to ascertain that Geraint is incapable of writing about himself. Which then begs the question as to what exactly is a subject of a Wikibio supposed to do if someone writes material which is wrong or defamatory? Whatever happened to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.97.209 (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the advice given BrownHairedGirl on the Admin notice board I rather think she had no option BUT to close the account. The user of the account may challenge this block in the usual way (clearly stated on the blocking notice) but this is a serious matter indeed. We either have someone posing as the person concerned (which is what I suspect) or the account is being used by a public figure to edit an article about themselves (much less likely) in clear breach of WP:COI. The actions taken by the administrator were the very least that could be expected in view of these facts. Galloglass 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fascinating. You mean a new user who has only been editing FOR 3 HOURS, gets blocked for 24 hours and then one hour into the block with no discussion is blocked indefinitely is not an irrational and absurd abuse of admin powers? Especially when the person blocked is the person whose biography it is? Is there a better definition of "trigger-happy abuse of power"?
What planet are you on? Because it isn't the Earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.97.209 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the conributions list for User:Geraintrdavies: it was two weeks of editing, not 3 hours
Also see the discussion at discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard.
User:Geraintrdavies's sense of timing is strange. A warning about WP:COI was posted on Geraintrdavies's talk page on 17th September, 11 days before he was blocked. There was no response.
If something is wrong or defamatory, the subject of the biography can explain the problem on the article's talk page, or can take the matter up in other ways: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. But if Geraintrdavies is actually the same person as the former MP, he should be well capable of understanding the concept of a Conflict of Interest because CoI rules are rigorously enforced in Parliament and well known to every MP. The words "Conflict of Interest" should fas a big red light to any MP, and the fact that they didn't set alarm bells ringing suggests to me that someone is posing as the MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain why a 24 hour block for COI was extended to indefinite? Was it so difficult to simply block the person from editing the one page or did you absolutely have to block him in perpetuity? Can you also explain why COI applies to politicians like Geraint but not to Jimbo Wales, William Connelley, Gary Weiss or Lulu from the Lotus Eaters or does COI only apply to people who can't fight back? Also as far as I am aware it is NOT a problem to edit one's own biography just so long as the facts are properly sourced - why did you take such a draconian step?
As for this
If something is wrong or defamatory, the subject of the biography can explain the problem on the article's talk page, or can take the matter up in other ways: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself
now that you've blocked him from the whole of Wikipedia, you've prevented him from explaining the problem on the article's talk page or anywhere else. He now has to go to ArbCom to get them to rule against you (a forlorn hope because ArbCom has its own peculiar view of what constitutes due process). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.97.209 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
For an explanation of why the block was extended, see discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Please read that before posting here again, or I will have to conclude that you are merely being disruptive.
Meanwhile, User:Geraintrdavies is not blocked from his own talk page. If he wants to, he can log in and post there to explain why he considers the block to be unjust. If he does so, I promise that I will draw this to the attention of WP:ANI if no-one else does so.
In the meantime, if you see a problem with the article, you can tell us here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CoI tag

Now that the article has been cleaned up, should the {{COI2}} tag be removed? I applied it on friday after a spurt of possibly-CoI editing had added a lot of unsourced promotional material, but I think that the current version is quite clean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, per advice at WP:COI/N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)