Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. [...]

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations [...]

Right buttons, Virgilio A. P. Machado, 03:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC):

What is called "community consensus" WILL permit you to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective.

Brazilian Wikipedia


A Wikipédia pode:

"Como sítio web privado, a Wikipédia pode bloquear, banir, ou por outras formas restringir a edição das páginas a qualquer indivíduo, com ou sem justificação ou razão para tal."

Please advise (2010 04 04 to 07):

I regret to report that one member of the community of stewards seems to have lost his bearings and embarked in a personal vendetta under false pretenses. Please forgive my audacity, but I would like to know if it is possible to have a fair hearing in this community. I would like to be properly advised on this matter since I have been accused of such monstrous deeds that I have been banned for life from the Portuguese Wikipedia.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 22:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Portuguese Wikipedia community is entirely large enough to make its own decisions in this regard. I doubt a community as large as theirs would ban a user without cause or justification. I suggest you be very careful as to your claims, and what you are claiming the community did to you, as this project's community members have very little patience or tolerance for people who come to Meta in an attempt to circumvent the decisions of an active, mature project community. bastique demandez! 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Much obliged. China has close to 1.5 billion inhabitants and I would not touch some of the decisions of its leaders with a ten foot pole. It is my unwavering conviction that a community as large as that bans citizens without cause or justification, according to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that most sovereign governments choose to look the other way in order to keep business as usual, considering that a small price to pay. Governments, however, do not have a conscience or memory. Human beings do. I find the above comment to a request for advise to be a crude attempt to intimidate and discredit. It defends impatience and intolerance. It alleges an intention that it cannot prove, nor can be deducted from a justified request for advice. It emphasizes qualities of a project that were not brought into question, while failing to address the question made, leading to the unfortunate indirect conclusion that the answer is: NO. Returning to the initial example. China is an active, mature community, and being one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations it's way beyond the stage of being a project. Vapmachado 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Meta administrators


A Meta administrator, having felt embarrassed by a quote of some material from Meta itself[1], and unable to control his anger, went on a rampage of outlandish behavior (Block) in a futile attempt to assert his power and authority, and save face, with the complacency and complicity of like minded sycophants.

After the discussion and all the provocations on that topic, a request to unblock was duly posted.[2] It turned out to be a futile exercise. It was let to linger there for more than two months, leading to the only plausible explanation that the objective was to block the user at all costs, no matter what the reason or its merits. For motives, you'll have to ask those involved. There are people specially trained that could help sort those kind of things. This user does not have the required qualifications.[3]

It is risible that after having failed to handle a request to unblock in a reasonable and timely fashion, so much zeal was taken in declining the unblock request[4] "that already expired."[5] Someone must be delusioning himself and deceiving others, thinking that closing the request when it was no longer relevant will instantly turn all wrongs into rights, just like magic.

Vapmachado 2011, Jan. 16, 00:29



The sinking of the MS Explorer

This page concerns restrictions on speech on Wikipedia:

"As a private website, Wikipedia has the legal right to block, ban, or otherwise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its content, with or even without reason."

  • case in point "article probation.", Decora, 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "I have never heard of this until today. "Article Probation"
      "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without any further warning."
      Imagine how a n00b feels reading that? Dont screw up or we will ban you. Not very inviting. we wont just remove your edit, we will banish you. no discussion, no appeal, no explanation.
      I have already suggested several times that the Edit Notice (the thing you see right above 'save my edit' button) should include a link to the EFF 'blogger legal guide',and advise people not to post defamatory or libelous material. my suggestion has been routinely ignored"
    • "what is 'you may be blocked without further warning'? the idea that violators of rules get to know what they did wrong is a principle as old as the Magna Carta. a good organization does not banish someone without giving a reason.
      This is a 'redundant regulation'. It is alreayd the policy, under Biography of Living Person, that any material not properly sourced is immediately removed. What is the extra step of banishing the editor? There are already procedures to ban people who have broken the rules repeatedly. You can also simply lock articles for a while. Why the redundancy?
      The upshot is that, if you want to know what drives people away, its that sort of thing. IMHO. Not a lack of a visual editor or whatever. It's the attitude of 'guilty of bad faith until proven innocent'."
  • prevent misuse of administrative power, Dror Kamir, 09:05, 9 Apr 2011 (UTC)
    • "Administrators' decisions should be followed much more closely in order to prevent misuse of administrative power. It is crucial that people who are not too involved themselves in the projects would do it. Collecting information from open pages and summarizing it in a way that would make it accessible to the general public is very much in line with the "non-intervention" policy taken vis-à-vis the projects. That's my idea for the Foundation or anyone else in the Wikimedia movement who is looking for ways to make the projects more welcoming."
  • ignore all rules, Dror Kamir, 20:59, 9 Apr 2011 (UTC)
    • [...] arbitration doesn't help in such cases. The arbitrators are not in a position to make editorial decisions. All they can do is tell the parties to control themselves, reiterate the principle of NPOV and decide upon further sanctions, which usually just add fuel to the fire. That's exactly what I was talking about in my previous message. Furthermore, the arbitrations are often conducted like a trial, and anyone who is not too acquainted with the legal language and procedures gets lost there.
      As for sanctions against disruptors - Clearly, a person who deletes paragraphs or adds f-words is a vandal that should be blocked. The problem is, that most blocked editors are not like that. Wikipedia used to have too major rules that are totally ignored today, namely _assume good faith_ and _ignore all rules_. The former rule means that any user has the right to be considered as a good person who came to enrich Wikipedia unless clearly proved otherwise. In most cases today, administrators assume that users (particularly new users) came to make disruptions unless proven otherwise. The latter rule means that Wikipedia is not about technicalities. If your actions are against the rules but derive from a sincere intention to improve Wikipedia, than you should not be considered a disruptor. Today, for example, a violation of the 3-revert rule is considered a justification for a ban, even if the user had a good reason to violate the rule. Even in the most harsh legal systems people are not always punished for breaking the law, because circumstances are also taken into account. It is quite awkward that Wikipedia, that started with the "ignore all rules" principle, has become even harsher with regards to users' violations of rules.
      Dror K
  • No why, no defense, and no appeal, Dror Kamir, 04:34, 10 Apr 2011 (UTC)
    • A veteran user does not like the contributions of a new user. S/he files a complaint about the new user being a sockpuppet. The new user is almost immediately blocked without knowing why (as s/he doesn't even know what sockpuppet it), without being able to defend himself, and without knowing to whom s/he can appeal.

Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List


Wikimedia Portugal

Wikimedia Brasil

Sue Gardner


Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:36
Subject: Appeal concerning the arbitration committee of the Portuguese Wikipedia
From: "Virgilio A. P. Machado" <>


I sent a couple of messages that have remained unanswered to this date. They are transcribed below. If you find in them anything that might concern you and the Wikimedia Foundation of which you are the Executive Director, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado
Engenharia Industrial
Universidade de Portugal
2829-516 Caparica
Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
or 351-21-295-4461
Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or 21-294-8567
or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500

Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)

(Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)

Kat Walsh

Kat Walsh Nov 2010

Kat Walsh, then Executive Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:11
Subject: Appeal
From: "Virgilio A. P. Machado" <>


I regret to have to bring this matter to your attention. Based on the information available on this page "Princípios fundadores" (I believe a localization of this "Founding principles") I wrote the message below to Jimmy Wales. Until now I have not learned of any feedback to that message. The deadline to file an appeal is long past (Dec. 12, at 19:35 UTC) and all my requests to do so (described in the message to Jimmy) have been ignored.

As Executive Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees I believe that not only you should be directly informed of this situation but are also best qualified to advise on this matter.

I'm currently State side, and can be reached by e-mail (through Wikipedia or directly to the above e-mail address), by phone (254-289-5524), or by IM & video ( or vapmachado).

Looking forward to hearing from you, I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales July 2010 crop

Jimmy Wales, Founder of the Wikipedia project.

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:44
From: "Virgilio A. P. Machado" <>
Subject: Appeal concerning the arbitration committee of the Portuguese Wikipedia

User: Vapmachado
Case: 2009-09-01 Virgílio A. P. Machado


I'm at this very awkward position of having to appeal to you in a matter concerning a decision by the arbitration committee (AC) of the Portuguese Wikipedia (one of the eight that has reached more than a half million articles).

Besides the filing party, I am the only one involved in a controversial arbitration case that dragged on for more than three months. During that time I posted 53 irregularities in the discussion page of the case. The case was closed this past Dec. 9, at 19:13 UTC. According to the AC By-Laws, I have three days, after the case closing, to file an appeal to the Portuguese Wikipedia community. That same evening I considered and drafted an appeal, but could not post it, because the AC final decision blocks me from doing it.

I have been asking to be unblocked in order to file my appeal, since later, that same evening, Dec. 10, at 00:49 UTC, when I posted a request on my own talk page. Without an answer, unable to post on any other user's talk page, or file my appeal, I e-mailed, through Wikipedia, [10] administrators(1-10), that appeared on-line, and the AC mail list (11), between 21:01, Dec. 10, and 03:03, Dec. 11. Members of the AC have been on-line, including the arbitrator that presented, signed, and notified me of the final decision(3).

With barely more than 24 hours before the deadline to file my appeal, I see no other alternative but write to you, taking your valuable time, and beg as a special favor something that should be handled through the appropriate channels in the Portuguese Wikipedia.

1) Please ask the AC to unblock me so that I may file my appeal.

2) Please ask the AC to stop the clock and extend the deadline to file my appeal, until I (or you, preferably) have the opportunity to inform the community of these developments, and post my appeal.

3) Once my appeal is posted, the clock will be set in motion again, for 24 hours of discussion in which I will be allowed to participate, and five days of voting. Although my appeal is based on this blatant breach of policy by the AC final decision, preventing me from posting it, according to the AC By-Laws, my appeal needs to obtain at least 20 favorable votes and a 2/3 majority.

If both of these requirements sound to you as easy to obtain in an environment of encyclopedians, think again. I know very little about the Wikipedias in other languages, but besides abysmal problems in its By-Laws, as the present situation illustrates, there is very little coincidence between what is written and what is done in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Don't let the language barrier fool you. There are plenty of people and users that speak both languages. It is your choice to pursue a hands off approach or to foster an environment where the principles in which you believe and should bind how the Portuguese Wikipedia is run, can thrive and be a source of inspiration for many of younger generations. If I can ever be of service to those principles, please let me know.

Please let me know if you need any other further information.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.


Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado
Engenharia Industrial
DEMI/FCT/UNL Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or 21-294-8567
PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500
Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)

(Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)

(1) ChristianH Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:01:45
(2) Dédi's Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:07:17
(3) Ruy Pugliesi Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:08:48
(4) Jo Lorib Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:22:49
(5) FSogumo Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:43:24
(6) Davemustaine Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:44:47
(7) João Carvalho Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:56:25
(8) Mschlindwein Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:20:01
(9) Bisbis Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:45
(10) Teles Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:03:34
(11) To: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:55:43

Human rights

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [...]. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."[6]


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

[...] the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,


Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance [...]

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. [...]

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations [...]

Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any [...] group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.