The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

[Desiphral]

I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing
issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with whom
I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to
edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track.


Here are the relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin

and in this article:

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml

this is the part that concerns me:


"However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that
occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives"
found<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news>that
the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October
2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of
voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his
native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged
in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any
inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly
having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to
request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users
requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the
language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a
normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such
conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the
case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user
and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that
the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations.

After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out
that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the
staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation
found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that
time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and
adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides
complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the
unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some
retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what
exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the
blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the
user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death
sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of
our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really
sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for
commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication,
while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it
would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only
you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers
changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he
permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his
account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern,
since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is
understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user
was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time
scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user.

The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about
the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for
such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to
present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests
of somebody to block<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphral>him
in the Wikipedias in all languages and to
close down<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin>the
one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those
suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment
(although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused
to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for
sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of
this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of
the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user
and/or with the Wikipedia he started."



After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to English
Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that my
luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world". I
did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article,
however, the links provided look compelling.


Desiphral
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

The actual policy, if it is policy, under which Desiphral was banned is a
prohibition against role accounts, or group accounts at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account

Is this policy? Is it a wise policy? Does it apply in his case?

Fred

> I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing
> issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with
> whom
> I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to
> edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track.
>
>
> Here are the relevant links:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin
>
> and in this article:
>
> http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml
>
> this is the part that concerns me:
>
>
> "However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that
> occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives"
> found<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news>that
> the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October
> 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal
> of
> voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his
> native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is
> engaged
> in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any
> inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users
> seemingly
> having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to
> request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious
> users
> requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the
> language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In
> a
> normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia,
> such
> conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the
> case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated
> user
> and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say
> that
> the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their
> allegations.
>
> After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out
> that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from
> the
> staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation
> found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that
> time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and
> adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides
> complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out
> the
> unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed
> some
> retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what
> exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but
> the
> blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on
> the
> user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death
> sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding
> of
> our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really
> sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account
> for
> commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication,
> while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it
> would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia...
> only
> you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers
> changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he
> permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his
> account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern,
> since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is
> understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective
> user
> was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time
> scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an
> user.
>
> The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail
> about
> the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for
> such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to
> present his position. He was not announced also about the following
> requests
> of somebody to
> block<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphral>him
> in the Wikipedias in all languages and to
> close
> down<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin>the
> one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those
> suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this
> moment
> (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly
> accused
> to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly
> for
> sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct
> of
> this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure
> of
> the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective
> user
> and/or with the Wikipedia he started."
>
>
>
> After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to
> English
> Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that
> my
> luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world".
> I
> did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article,
> however, the links provided look compelling.
>
>
> Desiphral
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

The moral panic on this subject is irrational. Folks are scandalized
(scandalized!) by the very thought of people being paid to add articles to
Wikipedia because they might have a conflict of interest. Rspeer notes that
we've got along perfectly well with volunteers so far, presumably implying
that volunteers are purely altruistic and few if any articles have been
created by editors with a conflict. On the contrary, my guess is quite a few
articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by
fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with
WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and
delete them because they were created with impure motives.

There is a good debate to be had about paid editing, the reward board,
content created with a conflict of interest, etc. The entanglement of money
and article content is inevitable given the "free to edit" structure of
Wikipedia. Banning it sends it underground, we're better off regulating it.
Unfortunately the discussions (not just the RfC, but the various deletion
debates and noticeboard threads) are often hijacked by puritans whose
instinct is to block first and discuss second. The block on Desiphral and
the attempted deletion of an entire Wikimedia project is just the latest
example.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Nathan wrote:
> On the contrary, my guess is quite a few
> articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by
> fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with
> WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and
> delete them because they were created with impure motives.
>  
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD.  The basic
"conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure,
whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a
role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one side.
> There is a good debate to be had about paid editing, the reward board,
> content created with a conflict of interest, etc.
I have an impression I have seen this film before.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...>
>
>
> As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD.  The basic
> "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure,
> whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a
> role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one
> side.
>

And how should the role of outside motivation be determined? Personally, I
think "conflict of interest" and "outside motivation" arguments should be
completely verboten in deletion discussions - they are irrelevant and call
for pure speculation by participants. I don't care why an article was
created, what matters is the quality and value of the content itself.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Nathan wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews@...
> <mailto:charles.r.matthews@...>>
>
>
>     As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD.  The
>     basic
>     "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure,
>     whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be
>     playing a
>     role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to
>     one side.
>
>
> And how should the role of outside motivation be determined?

At the level of discussion trying to reach a consensus on content, it's
the thumb on the scales applied when people are trying to balance up
factors. But it really takes a dispute resolution process to deal with
the consequences, for example to see if a topical ban is required. It
was always intended that a COI guideline was mainly about preventing
people blundering into the kind of edit wars that would be the worst for
them; and not designed as such for enforcement.
> Personally, I think "conflict of interest" and "outside motivation"
> arguments should be completely verboten in deletion discussions - they
> are irrelevant and call for pure speculation by participants. I don't
> care why an article was created, what matters is the quality and value
> of the content itself.
I agree, that is how it should be.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

Looking at the blocking notice [2], there seems to be a sensible solution to this:

You stated [1] that: "Some years ago, other people I knew became interested in my work at Wikipedia and I gladly supported them. The initial idea was that each one should have a personal account, but in practice, since it was real life collaboration and we had available only one computer, most of their/our edits ended up under my username ... I learned later that some of them managed to supplement their income by working at Wikipedia."

Per the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]], "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."

It sounds like you had a clear contravention of this policy and the admins giving you a block seems to be the right thing to do. However, given your long history of good editing to the projects, particularly with the other account, you seem to have grounds to appeal the "indefinite" block.

All you need to say is:

"a) I accept that I shouldn't have let others use my account
b) I no longer let others use my account and won't in future
c) My account is not compromised as I have changed the password "

Therefore:

Given that it was done in good faith given that we only had access to one computer, and I have an otherwise clean record of extensive good faith edits to Wikipedia:

"Please replace my indefinite block with a time limited block (maybe ask for a week?)"

In the "Guide to appealing blocks" [3], it explicitly says:



"You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

    • ... or:
    • that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead."

If they come back with other concerns about, say, paid editing, then you can address that then - but at the moment I'd suggest you focus on the reason given for the block.

Do all that and I'm sure you'll be up and running in no time. :)

Regards,

Andrew


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news 
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desiphral#Compromised_account 
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GAB 

"Desiphral" <desiphral@...> wrote:

> From: "Desiphral" <desiphral@...>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 11:18:44 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
>
> I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing
> issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with whom
> I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to
> edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track.
>
>
> Here are the relevant links:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news 
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin 
>
> and in this article:
>
> http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml 
>
> this is the part that concerns me:
>
>
> "However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that
> occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives"
> found<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news>that
> the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October
> 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of
> voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his
> native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged
> in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any
> inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly
> having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to
> request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users
> requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the
> language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a
> normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such
> conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the
> case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user
> and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that
> the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations.
>
> After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out
> that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the
> staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation
> found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that
> time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and
> adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides
> complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the
> unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some
> retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what
> exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the
> blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the
> user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death
> sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of
> our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really
> sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for
> commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication,
> while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it
> would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only
> you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers
> changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he
> permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his
> account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern,
> since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is
> understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user
> was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time
> scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user.
>
> The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about
> the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for
> such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to
> present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests
> of somebody to block<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphral>him
> in the Wikipedias in all languages and to
> close down<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin>the
> one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those
> suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment
> (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused
> to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for
> sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of
> this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of
> the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user
> and/or with the Wikipedia he started."
>
>
>
> After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to English
> Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that my
> luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world". I
> did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article,
> however, the links provided look compelling.
>
>
> Desiphral
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

Just to re-emphasis the point, in the words of the admin who blocked Desiphral:

"at present there's no community consensus to block for commercial editing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news 

----- "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey@...> wrote:

> From: "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey@...>
> To: "Desiphral" <desiphral@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 17:37:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
>
>
> Hi Desiphral,
>
> Not sure if you get these message - please find below the message I sent - hope it helps!
>
> Regards,
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey@...>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 17:35:34 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
>
>
> Looking at the blocking notice [2], there seems to be a sensible solution to this:
>
> You stated [1] that: "Some years ago, other people I knew became interested in my work at Wikipedia and I gladly supported them. The initial idea was that each one should have a personal account, but in practice, since it was real life collaboration and we had available only one computer, most of their/our edits ended up under my username ... I learned later that some of them managed to supplement their income by working at Wikipedia."
>
> Per the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]], "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."
>
> It sounds like you had a clear contravention of this policy and the admins giving you a block seems to be the right thing to do. However, given your long history of good editing to the projects, particularly with the other account, you seem to have grounds to appeal the "indefinite" block.
>
> All you need to say is:
>
> "a) I accept that I shouldn't have let others use my account
> b) I no longer let others use my account and won't in future
> c) My account is not compromised as I have changed the password"
>
> Therefore:
>
> Given that it was done in good faith given that we only had access to one computer, and I have an otherwise clean record of extensive good faith edits to Wikipedia:
>
> "Please replace my indefinite block with a time limited block (maybe ask for a week?)"
>
> In the "Guide to appealing blocks" [3], it explicitly says:
>
>

"You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

    • ... or:
    • that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead."

> If they come back with other concerns about, say, paid editing, then you can address that then - but at the moment I'd suggest you focus on the reason given for the block.
>
> Do all that and I'm sure you'll be up and running in no time. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news 
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desiphral#Compromised_account 
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GAB 
>
> "Desiphral" <desiphral@...> wrote:
> > From: "Desiphral" <desiphral@...>
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> > Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 11:18:44 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
> >
> > I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing
> > issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with whom
> > I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to
> > edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track.
> >
> >
> > Here are the relevant links:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news 
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin 
> >
> > and in this article:
> >
> > http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml 
> >
> > this is the part that concerns me:
> >
> >
> > "However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that
> > occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives"
> > found<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news>that
> > the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October
> > 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of
> > voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his
> > native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged
> > in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any
> > inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly
> > having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to
> > request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users
> > requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the
> > language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a
> > normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such
> > conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the
> > case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user
> > and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that
> > the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations.
> >
> > After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out
> > that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the
> > staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation
> > found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that
> > time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and
> > adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides
> > complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the
> > unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some
> > retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what
> > exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the
> > blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the
> > user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death
> > sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of
> > our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really
> > sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for
> > commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication,
> > while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it
> > would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only
> > you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers
> > changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he
> > permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his
> > account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern,
> > since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is
> > understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user
> > was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time
> > scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user.
> >
> > The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about
> > the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for
> > such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to
> > present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests
> > of somebody to block<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphral>him
> > in the Wikipedias in all languages and to
> > close down<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_admin>the
> > one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those
> > suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment
> > (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused
> > to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for
> > sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of
> > this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of
> > the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user
> > and/or with the Wikipedia he started."
> >
> >
> >
> > After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to English
> > Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that my
> > luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world". I
> > did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article,
> > however, the links provided look compelling.
> >
> >
> > Desiphral
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
> >

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some years
ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption, is
"the right thing to do." That's like saying "You violated 3RR in 2004, I'm
blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your guilt and
promise never to edit-war again." It's not bad advice for someone who wants
to be unblocked, given human nature, but it shouldn't be necessary.
Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Nathan wrote:
> I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some years
> ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption, is
> "the right thing to do."
The account is blocked, because the problem is with the account. There
are obviously good grounds for an appeal. This is the sort of issue that
needs to be worked out by some private discussion.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Desiphral]

Thank you for these thoughts. The suggestions of Andrew about how to make an
appeal will probably get me unblocked.

But, in the first place, I'm not sure if I was blocked correctly. I was told
in my last request for unblock that "the same person and only that one
person may press the keys on the keyboard". Is this part of the policy
regarding the role accounts? To my knowledge, it would be only here where
one may find info about this notion:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account

And given my personal case, it looks like it needs some elaboration, my
impression is that it leaves too much space for personal interpretations.
Also it should be more visible, in the times I was active in various
Wikimedia projects, I never came across it, to give a thought about what I'm
doing. And I spent some time on meta.wm to learn how to organize a new
Wikipedia. Probably this is because there are few such cases, unlike the
opposite context of sockpuppetry, about which it is impossible to spend some
days in Wikipedia and not know about it. I remembered the case of this
account (I found it somewhere in statements at the RfC about paid editing)
apparently not sanctioned as an official role acount (at least I did not see
it in that meta.wm list):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nttc

A lot of people probably saw it and I saw no sign on somebody rising this
issue.

My interpretation of the phrase "Any other accounts with multiple users are
likely to be blocked." (from that meta.wm page) is that an account with
uncertain practices (it does not state it is a role account, from the edits
it results there is no awareness about this thing) should be warned first
about this rule, to decide what to do. Do you want to be a role account?
Please give us the reasons for accepting you as such. If not, please get
individual or abandon this account, otherwise we will certainly block you.
Besides the lack of awareness about this notion, I would state a lack of
intended noxiousness (unlike the sockpuppetry) as a reason for a first
warning (I'm not sure what bad things can one do in a case like mine or the
above Nttc, though I don't know what else might happen in sensibly different
situations).

This if my case is indeed under the current definition of a role account.
Plus that my case is a really old issue, I find an indefblock way over the
top. Sincerely, I didn't like at all the way I was blocked and my conscience
does not let me so easy go through Andrew's suggestion.

Desiphral
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

----- "Desiphral" <desiphral@...> wrote:

> From: "Desiphral" <desiphral@...>
> To: "charles r matthews" <charles.r.matthews@...>, "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 20:49:28 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
>
> Thank you for these thoughts. The suggestions of Andrew about how to make an
> appeal will probably get me unblocked.
>
> But, in the first place, I'm not sure if I was blocked correctly. I was told
> in my last request for unblock that "the same person and only that one
> person may press the keys on the keyboard". Is this part of the policy
> regarding the role accounts?

No, but it is part of the policy regarding user accounts generally. Personally, I think you were correctly blocked - not because of "role accounts" - which is a slightly different issue - but because of the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]]. Two people should not share a single user account - although the wording you quoted was that of the individual, the principle is clearly laid down in policy.

Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOSHARE if you want more information.

Regards,

Andrew
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised account. A user was allowing other people to share his account, and had not agreed to stop doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly deserved a block.

Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale might not still apply.

----- "Nathan" <nawrich@...> wrote:

> From: "Nathan" <nawrich@...>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 18:51:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
>
> I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some years
> ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption, is
> "the right thing to do." That's like saying "You violated 3RR in 2004, I'm
> blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your guilt and
> promise never to edit-war again." It's not bad advice for someone who wants
> to be unblocked, given human nature, but it shouldn't be necessary.
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised
> account. A user was allowing other people to share his account, and had
> not agreed to stop doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly
> deserved a block.
>
> Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale
> might not still apply.

There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing Wikipedia
accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out. We might have to
sort some of this stuff out. I think we can.

Fred

>
> ----- "Nathan" <nawrich@...> wrote:
>> From: "Nathan" <nawrich@...>
>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
>> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 18:51:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
>> Portugal
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and
>> my personal case)
>>
>> I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some years
>> ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption,
>> is
>> "the right thing to do." That's like saying "You violated 3RR in 2004,
>> I'm
>> blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your
>> guilt and
>> promise never to edit-war again." It's not bad advice for someone who
>> wants
>> to be unblocked, given human nature, but it shouldn't be necessary.
>> Nathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

----- "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud@...> wrote:
> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud@...>

> There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
> only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing Wikipedia
> accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out. We might have to
> sort some of this stuff out. I think we can.

Yeah other people use my computer too. Just remember to log out when you've finished and don't tell them your password!

Oh, and dont click the "remember me" box.

Regards,
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Desiphral]

I agreed as I knew about it, I said "they will stay away from it" (without
knowing about this policy, just for avoiding accusations of association) and
I changed my password. If it's about the present tense of "I do not let
'arbitrary' people use my account, even less spammers", it was as a reply to
the present tense of the previous text of Rspeer, considering that they talk
about what happened in the past. Then I continued to describe what happened
in the past and how they did what they wanted by themselves. The present had
no relevance for me, since I did not edit on Wikipedia for a lot of time
and, as far as I can foresee, I don't have plans to edit in the near future.


Plus that, anyway, with my knowledge of English, not letting arbitrary
people does not imply automatically letting specific people (as one derived
a conclusion).

Deiphral

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>wrote:

> > Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised
> > account. A user was allowing other people to share his account, and had
> > not agreed to stop doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly
> > deserved a block.
> >
> > Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale
> > might not still apply.
>
> There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
> only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing Wikipedia
> accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out. We might have to
> sort some of this stuff out. I think we can.
>
> Fred
>
> >
> > ----- "Nathan" <nawrich@...> wrote:
> >> From: "Nathan" <nawrich@...>
> >> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 18:51:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> >> Portugal
> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and
> >> my personal case)
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some years
> >> ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption,
> >> is
> >> "the right thing to do." That's like saying "You violated 3RR in 2004,
> >> I'm
> >> blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your
> >> guilt and
> >> promise never to edit-war again." It's not bad advice for someone who
> >> wants
> >> to be unblocked, given human nature, but it shouldn't be necessary.
> >> Nathan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@...
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

OK, I'll unblock you, and save you a step in the appeals process, to
unblock-en-l. I can see several things going on, some cultural. There is
no evidence in recent edits, checked by checkuser, that there is any
editing by others or for pay. In other words, this user has, other than
impudently disclosed information about events in the past, done nothing.

Fred Bauder

> I agreed as I knew about it, I said "they will stay away from it"
> (without
> knowing about this policy, just for avoiding accusations of association)
> and
> I changed my password. If it's about the present tense of "I do not let
> 'arbitrary' people use my account, even less spammers", it was as a reply
> to
> the present tense of the previous text of Rspeer, considering that they
> talk
> about what happened in the past. Then I continued to describe what
> happened
> in the past and how they did what they wanted by themselves. The present
> had
> no relevance for me, since I did not edit on Wikipedia for a lot of time
> and, as far as I can foresee, I don't have plans to edit in the near
> future.
>
>
> Plus that, anyway, with my knowledge of English, not letting arbitrary
> people does not imply automatically letting specific people (as one
> derived
> a conclusion).
>
> Deiphral
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Fred Bauder
> <fredbaud@...>wrote:
>
>> > Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised
>> > account. A user was allowing other people to share his account, and
>> had
>> > not agreed to stop doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly
>> > deserved a block.
>> >
>> > Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale
>> > might not still apply.
>>
>> There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
>> only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing
>> Wikipedia
>> accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out. We might have to
>> sort some of this stuff out. I think we can.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >
>> > ----- "Nathan" <nawrich@...> wrote:
>> >> From: "Nathan" <nawrich@...>
>> >> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 18:51:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain,
>> Ireland,
>> >> Portugal
>> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia
>> (...and
>> >> my personal case)
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some
>> years
>> >> ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any
>> disruption,
>> >> is
>> >> "the right thing to do." That's like saying "You violated 3RR in
>> 2004,
>> >> I'm
>> >> blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your
>> >> guilt and
>> >> promise never to edit-war again." It's not bad advice for someone
>> who
>> >> wants
>> >> to be unblocked, given human nature, but it shouldn't be necessary.
>> >> Nathan
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >> WikiEN-l@...
>> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l@...
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Desiphral]

Thank you. After the unpleasant experience I went through, I wonder if there
are other people caught as collateral victims in this paid editing roundup.
Something needs to be done to prevent this. Plus that, generally, I find the
whole roundup process not addressing the issue of paid editing, just an
unproductive way to produce new heroes and villains.

Desiphral

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...> wrote:

> OK, I'll unblock you, and save you a step in the appeals process, to
> unblock-en-l. I can see several things going on, some cultural. There is
> no evidence in recent edits, checked by checkuser, that there is any
> editing by others or for pay. In other words, this user has, other than
> impudently disclosed information about events in the past, done nothing.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> > I agreed as I knew about it, I said "they will stay away from it"
> > (without
> > knowing about this policy, just for avoiding accusations of association)
> > and
> > I changed my password. If it's about the present tense of "I do not let
> > 'arbitrary' people use my account, even less spammers", it was as a reply
> > to
> > the present tense of the previous text of Rspeer, considering that they
> > talk
> > about what happened in the past. Then I continued to describe what
> > happened
> > in the past and how they did what they wanted by themselves. The present
> > had
> > no relevance for me, since I did not edit on Wikipedia for a lot of time
> > and, as far as I can foresee, I don't have plans to edit in the near
> > future.
> >
> >
> > Plus that, anyway, with my knowledge of English, not letting arbitrary
> > people does not imply automatically letting specific people (as one
> > derived
> > a conclusion).
> >
> > Deiphral
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Fred Bauder
> > <fredbaud@...>wrote:
> >
> >> > Put simply, because there was an ongoing issue with a compromised
> >> > account. A user was allowing other people to share his account, and
> >> had
> >> > not agreed to stop doing this. That is an ongoing problem and rightly
> >> > deserved a block.
> >> >
> >> > Of course if the user later agreed to stop doing this, the rationale
> >> > might not still apply.
> >>
> >> There is still a problem: He still has friends; there is probably still
> >> only one computer; and his friends may be interested in writing
> >> Wikipedia
> >> accounts for hire, a legal activity, as he points out. We might have to
> >> sort some of this stuff out. I think we can.
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >> >
> >> > ----- "Nathan" <nawrich@...> wrote:
> >> >> From: "Nathan" <nawrich@...>
> >> >> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> >> >> Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 18:51:45 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain,
> >> Ireland,
> >> >> Portugal
> >> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia
> >> (...and
> >> >> my personal case)
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from "some
> >> years
> >> >> ago", that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any
> >> disruption,
> >> >> is
> >> >> "the right thing to do." That's like saying "You violated 3RR in
> >> 2004,
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> blocking you for 24 hours. If you wish to be unblocked, admit your
> >> >> guilt and
> >> >> promise never to edit-war again." It's not bad advice for someone
> >> who
> >> >> wants
> >> >> to be unblocked, given human nature, but it shouldn't be necessary.
> >> >> Nathan
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> >> WikiEN-l@...
> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> > WikiEN-l@...
> >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@...
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Charles Matthews wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
>  
>> On the contrary, my guess is quite a few
>> articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by
>> fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with
>> WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and
>> delete them because they were created with impure motives.
>>    
> As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD.  The basic
> "conflict of interest" point is not that motives should be pure,
> whatever that means, but that outside motivation should not be playing a
> role so large that the interests of the encyclopedia are pushed to one side.
>  

"Impure motives" suggests that somebody knows why the contributor added
something better than he does himself.  A true conflict of interest is
rarely so obvious, and rarely so large as to damage the interests of the
encyclopedia.  Reasonable people will adapt to circumstances when it is
pointed out that they are in a "potential" conflict of interest that was
never made obvious to them.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Andrew Turvey wrote:
> Per the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]], "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."
>  

This is worded in such an absolute way as to make the hearts of the
policy police glow.  The wording is clear with no provision for
mitigating circumstances.  There is especially no room for previous
discussion, that might just reveal innocent circumstances.

> It sounds like you had a clear contravention of this policy and the admins giving you a block seems to be the right thing to do. However, given your long history of good editing to the projects, particularly with the other account, you seem to have grounds to appeal the "indefinite" block.
>
> All you need to say is:
>
> "a) I accept that I shouldn't have let others use my account
> b) I no longer let others use my account and won't in future
> c) My account is not compromised as I have changed the password "
>
> Therefore:
>
> Given that it was done in good faith given that we only had access to one computer, and I have an otherwise clean record of extensive good faith edits to Wikipedia:
>
> "Please replace my indefinite block with a time limited block (maybe ask for a week?)"
>
> In the "Guide to appealing blocks" [3], it explicitly says:
>
>
>
> "You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:
>
>     • ... or:
>     • that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead."
>
> If they come back with other concerns about, say, paid editing, then you can address that then - but at the moment I'd suggest you focus on the reason given for the block.
>
> Do all that and I'm sure you'll be up and running in no time. :)
>  

Somebody with that attitude would be well-suited to running a
totalitarian regime.  It presumes guilt.  Where is the obligation for
the blocking administrator to establish that the contributor's action
were with any kind of wrongful intent.  He has to agree to not beat his
wife again, even if he never did it before.

The attitude is wholly reprehensible, and merely encourages lazy
administrators.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l