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_new... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desiphral#Compromised_account [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GAB
"Desiphral" desiphral@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Desiphral" desiphral@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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_new...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and...
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" foundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_newsthat 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 blockhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desiphralhim in the Wikipedias in all languages and to close downhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_and_its_compromised_adminthe 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
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
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
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@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----- "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net
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,
Andrew Turvey wrote:
----- "Fred Bauder" wrote:
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.
And people with shared computers will continue to engage in these minor faults. So what! There is no general need to make such an exaggerated fuss about it.
Ec
Andrew Turvey wrote:
----- "Fred Bauder" wrote:
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.
And people with shared computers will continue to engage in these minor faults. So what! There is no general need to make such an exaggerated fuss about it.
Ec
The fuss is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_new...
Essentially a lot of bad talk, but the user has not actually done anything improper with his account recently and is certainly aware of our expectations at this point. I unblocked him.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
And people with shared computers will continue to engage in these minor faults. So what! There is no general need to make such an exaggerated fuss about it.
Ec
The fuss is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_new...
Essentially a lot of bad talk, but the user has not actually done anything improper with his account recently and is certainly aware of our expectations at this point. I unblocked him.
Fuss is not required, but the business of keeping an account clean is effectively in our "terms of service", and complaints that the terms are enforced are really misplaced.
Charles
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@fairpoint.netwrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@fairpoint.netwrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@fairpoint.net 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@fairpoint.netwrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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