[WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

[Fred Bauder]

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