Talk:Geraint Davies (Labour politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

I'm sorry exactly why is it wrong to post that Geriant Davies had to pay back money for stamps. Sorry for the use of a blog as a reference but the Croydon Advertiser do not keep back issues online back that far - however, it can be checked with them and is a matter of public record. It can also be checked by writing to parliment. Also I surely dont have to prove that trains run all night from Victoria to East Croydon on the hour every hour - you cn check this by visiting National Rail Enquiries. They always have done - or do I have to dig out a 2005 timetable? You're just trying to delete real information Anthony Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyEMiller (talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A reference to the Croydon advertiser with appropriate publication date and page of the article is quite acceptable. You must bear in mind though you have to make clear what changes you are making to an article and why in the edit summary. Also your edit must be written from a neutral point of view. Thirdly this article was a war zone two years ago between two rival parties attempting to have their own POV reflected in this article. This was reversed, leaving the largely balanced article that now exists. It would be nice to keep it that way. Thanks - Galloglass 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"this article was a war zone two years ago" indeed - a date which would interestingly coincide with the election to succeed Alan Williams for his Swansea seat. Anthony Miller

With regard to train time I have removed the statement "plus a half hour wait the round trip was over 2 hours even with a regular service". I feel the measurement of the time as a "round trip" at the end of a sentence describing the length of the one way journey is deliberately misleading and confusing. Further that it is not and never has been neccessary to wait half an hour for the train. The train goes on the hour every hour - it always has done. The fastest way to do the journey would be to walk to Victoria and get a taxi from the taxi rank outside East Croydon to his own house. This would cost at most an extra fiver in today's money. The exact location of Mr Davies home was the subject of some controversy http://www.angelfire.com/un/geraintdavies/ but as I do not know the details of the case I have not put it up. I dont know the details of exactly where he lived but let us put it this way. If I frequently saw him walking to Ruskin House (the Croydon Labour Party HQ) which is about 500m from Leon House (my old office) in the mornings he cannot have lived much further out than me. 15 minutes walk seems about right. Also he could have driven in for late night sittings. Westminster has a car park. And late night I estimate it talkes no more than 40 minutes. 50 in the rush hour. Anthony Miller

--AnthonyEMiller (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

COI (again)

I added {{COI}} due to a series of edits by 81.107.198.149 which I suspect may be biased. If nothing else, it needs those private member's bills formatted in itallic rather than bold. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph - politicians pages being whitewashed before election

The Telegraph writes that politicians have had pages whitewashed by users connected to the legislature. Also on Indy and IBTimes. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a gross abuse of an invaluable free educational tool by those who should be supporting education; it needs stamping out. We should add a paragraph to each page mentioned -using all wp:RS references and also to United Kingdom general election, 2015 for starters. I'll do my share. However we should also make sure that those IPs responsible know the rules on wp:coi editing and the procedure for making complaints -though they should have read the rules before starting. JRPG (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplication in Election to Parliament and Swansea West sections.

These seem to have duplicate material, possibly my fault. I'll update Election to Parliament and leave Swansea West after 2010. JRPG (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)