March 2012 edit
Your recent edits to Welsh Development Agency could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.
This note constitutes a legal threat; please retract it to avoid being blocked. If you have an actual dispute over content, the right place to engage is at Talk:Welsh Development Agency. Frank | talk 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
ANI edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat at helpdesk. Thank you. Frank | talk 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
re: NLT edit
Hi, I saw your note on the help board. It looks like you were blocked under Wikipedia's No legal threats policy, because you mentioned something about filing subpoenas against Wikipedia editors. Obviously you're entitled to pursue such a course and we cannot stop you from it, though we'd much prefer that you work out the problem on-wiki, i.e. on the article talk page, or through our internal dispute resolution system, or by contacting the volunteer team by email (see Volunteer response team). What we're very strict about is that we're not able to cope with a dispute pursued on-wiki and in the legal system at the same time. So if someone pursues legal action (or says they are even thinking about it) they are not allowed to participate in editing here, and that is why you got blocked. Again, that is explained in the No legal threats policy. If you want to discuss your issues with the article on-wiki, it's usually just a matter of withdrawing the legal threat, so please do that. At that point it should be possible to get some neutral editors to comment on the article content issues.
Regards
67.117.145.9 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Clarification to others: Awdurdod previously edited as User:86.10.11.16[citation needed] and got blocked under that address after conflict at the article Welsh Development Agency led to NLT. He then posted at the help desk asking for assistance because he had been blocked without enough explanation. Awdurdod, please respond here on this page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)]]
- Frank, please see the help desk thread Wikipedia:Help_desk#WELSH_DEVELOPMENT_AGENCY from February 27, and related discussion at Talk:Welsh Development Agency. This is clearly still Mr. Davis. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I had already seen that thread; I think WP:DUCK is useful in cases of abuse but I'm not convinced we are dealing with abuse here. Rather, I think we have a user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works who is being bombarded with our alphabet soup. I declined to block this morning when I saw the issue on ANI, hoping we could actually have some dialog. Frank | talk 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
--Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Frank, right, Awurdod is not an abuser, he's just a new user who doesn't understand the arcane rules of this place. Awurdod, please note that the block Orange Mike just placed is also normal procedure in this situation. You can still respond here on your talk page (you just can't edit other pages). You can also email info-en-q@wikimedia.org to discuss the issue. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you the informative few. I can see even from just text there are some very worthy people here. The people that blocked me are the people I described in my note. ( feel better now non descripts?) The note I made at no time made DIRECT legal threats. Just pointed out a few realities. AND offered mutual redress Wiki is undemocratic. YOU will be exposed over time. You haven't even got the guts to leave the text for debate. Yeah I know you. Gutless and faceless - but I can face me in the morning. You hide from .... well you.
- All your previous edits remain visible in the "history" section of the article in question, nobody's hiding. Unsourced POV comments about the government, random non-sequiturs like "Edwina hart semms dirctionless" (sic), discussion of the article added to the article itself - none of these things are suitable for Wikipedia, as per the guidelines which have developed over the last decade. The main problem with your edits is notability - there are no reliable sources explaining why the "new WDA" is notable. Asking editors to approach you for the real information is no good - on Wikipedia, the standard is what is verifiable, rather than what is supposedly true. When the "new WDA" does something, anything, that gets coverage in a reliable independent source, then some material about it can be added to this article or created as a new article. The next problem is conflict of interest - if this is your company, you shouldn't really be adding material about it at all. There are avenues in place to request articles be created about notable topics which you might be biased towards, so as to avoid POV or accusations of POV. Also, you should note that nobody owns this article, and nobody's edits are automatically considered to be more valuable than anyone else's (I've been here nine years and still see my contributions reverted or deleted - you mustn't take it personally.) Finally, the content you add should be "encyclopedic" - informal discussion belongs on the talk page, not in the article itself, and any controversial statements added to the article should be reliably sourced. That's all there is to it - if you want to stick around and make this a better encyclopedia, great - it's a lot of fun and I'm sure there are lots of articles out there dealing with topics of interest to you that you could add useful content to, or clean up a bit. If you just want to push one particular point of view on one topic, ignore all the guidelines, and then start throwing around oblique legal threats and wildly-inaccurate accusations, then this sort of thing will keep happening. But I doubt anyone here bears you or your company any ill will at all, I certainly don't. Fosse8 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE edit
Out on interest I just looked at you administrator section. It mention administrators must observe high standards. So can anyone demonstrate the high standards Orange Mike observed? Yes it gets sillier and frankly Wiki is a threat to truth and democracy. I suggest you block Orange Mike and strip his status as he is clearly an abuser. The likes of him undermine the whole of Wiki. It WILL catch you out in the end, always does. And what will you do to address the subversives? those "clever" ones some working for governments that hide behind a veneer and manipulate you? Yes truly heading for a fall Wiki Pity- had such good intentions but methinks many you could benefit from reading Animal Farm. Good thing some of you have read it, thanks to those.
Gosh what rubbish all this is. A few sensible honest people and a bunch of little Hitlers who can't take truth and democracy- like the so called orange mike! Mikey old son- there were NO legal threats. Suggest you go back to school. But frankly I want nothing to do with this rather silly organisation. Thank you though to the grown ups
- OrangeMike had to impose a block because of the way you worded your recent posts - under the guideline (linked to above), what you said was constituted as a legal threat, and once that's happened you get blocked. As explained above, this is to stop the issue getting any worse while legal action is potentially being considered by one party. It's absolutely standard policy and OrangeMike did the right thing, though a bit of explanation here wouldn't have gone amiss. If you withdraw the comments, the block is usually removed. Fosse8 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- You keep making unsubtle threats of nameless legal consequences to Wikipedia if we don't accommodate your viewpoint here, full of ominous hints like the Vercotti Brothers in the old Python sketch: You've got a nice army base here, Colonel.... We wouldn't want anyfing to happen to it. If you withdraw the legal threats, we withdraw the block, and you can pursue some more constructive approach to the questions involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Let's focus on one very clear point here: the message you posted (which I linked to at the top of the page) most definitely was a legal threat. Even if we ignore the words "legal", "lawyer", and "vexatious" in the message, there's no way to interpret "I have no desire to issue subpoenas" other than as a legal threat. There simply is no reason to issue a subpoena other than in the course of legal action or investigation which is highly likely to lead to legal action, and indeed a subpoena is, by its nature, a product of the legal system. I was not inclined to immediately block you without at least some amount of discussion, but that does not mean I thought your comment wasn't a legal threat. Now that you have been blocked, I am not at all inclined to unblock you, because you have persisted in pointing fingers at everyone else, and especially because you have persisted in claiming no threat was made. I had rather hoped that you had a content dispute that could be resolved, but your subsequent edits support blocking rather than the thought that you are interested in contributing within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Frank | talk 13:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There was NO discussion mein fuherer. Crack on. Truth always prevails in the long run.
Fosse8 are you not a lawer?
- Yes I am. I'm not being "vexatious", though, and nor do I work for the Welsh Government (or indeed accept work from any quango or public body - my firm's practice consists entirely of individual clients.) I once had a project co-ordination role at the WDA for a few months while I was saving up to attend law school, but that's the extent of any conflict of interest here. I don't see what this has to do with anything I or anyone else said on this page - read my response above. Whilst we're at it, with respect, there was an attempt at discussion, I posted three times on your IP talk page and again on the discussion page for the article (with no response) before the first block was imposed. Fosse8 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Twas just a question fosse8 just a question. And for the record, as I've no idea what an IP page is and only now know what a discussion page is- here, so there could be no discussion. Yes I hear, "your fault", get up to speed. Fair point but wading through this wiki stuff is very time consuming- and confusing. You have to be a certain sort with a major interest to read all that's involved. Even my academic friends find it irritating. I just haven't the time or to be honest- inclination. And my fuherer jibe was not aimed at you, it was aimed at an American whom has a problem with semantics, and an odd interpretation of what constitutes a legal threat- in in my view. There are legal threats flying around beyond my control and not of my making. My intention however ham fisted was to put that on the record. I also- when I first found out there was problem tried to e-mail you and someone called eyeserene who appeared to be involved. But the block wouldn't let me do so. In my world- the one of business that doesn't make sense. No hard feeling old chap- even if you put in a block. I'll move on. But by hook or by crook wiki will record the truth and facts about the modern WDA- one day. And exposing government forces that seek to threaten and bully individuals going about their honest and legal business is something that should be recorded in the facts. Look at what's already been written. No difference.
Update I tried to authenticate my e-mail in order to show you I am trying to see how this all works. Twice it sent invalid back. Which means I cannot mail orangemike. Now- could it be he's done that himself- Loads of badges Mikey but I doubt any are for bravery. George Orwell- read him Sigh
- I doubt there is anything you need to email OrangeMike (or anyone, really) that you couldn't say here on this page. If you wish to be unblocked, please read the instructions above. There's nothing Orwellian about it. Frank | talk 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, please sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end, so we know at a glance who and typed comments and when. Thanks! Frank | talk 17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Beyond Frank's pertinent comments, as an uninvolved party, I've a couple remarks to make to Awdurdod.
You claim to run a business, and as such, you are no doubt aware that there are rules and regulations involved. The government would have limited patience with repeated, rambling claims that learning or following them is too hard or too much effort, and no doubt you yourself would have limited patience with a new employee you hired telling you that it was too much work to learn your company's policies and what is required of him.
In like fashion, Wikipedia has rules and guidelines, which all editors are expected to learn and follow. Hundreds of thousands of editors, worldwide, have done so, and neither find them confusing or onerous. You are much better off doing so yourself, instead of arguing at length why the policies are wrong and you are right, or why you shouldn't be expected to know or follow them ... just as you know it wouldn't do your new hire any good to argue with you as to why your rules and procedures shouldn't apply to him. (Indeed, you might answer that your business is not a democracy, and that your company's policies are not up to the new hire to flout at will. It would be much as Wikipedia is, in that fashion.)
Of course, you are free to decide that you lack the time or that it isn't worth the bother to do so, in which case good luck in your endeavors. Ravenswing 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"You claim to run a business" "New employee". Really. Kinda supports what many say about wiki and some of its users. To use a cliché- get over yourself.
Someone with the "power" may want to use this information
It came as the Conservatives used an opposition day debate in the Senedd to table a motion calling on the Welsh Government to endorse the comments of Professor Brian Morgan, director of the Cardiff School of Management’s Creative Leadership and Enterprise Centre, that “the closure of the WDA and the abolition of the ‘WDA brand’ will probably go down in history as the worst policy decision made in Wales in living memory”.
That motion that was eventually passed was amended to reflect Welsh Government policy.