User talk:José Ph/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.


Preface[edit]

There was an administrator named Jeffrey O. Gustafson who decided at some point that it would be a good idea to challenge the legitimacy of our account. The following is what transpired from beginning to end. (Special thanks to all who came to our defense. To some this may seem to have been an unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion but in retrospect we view it as part of wiki-life. hydnjo talk 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Hello.[edit]

Heidi and Joe,

My name is Jeff and I'm an admin here. It recently occured to me that your account, as a shared account, is in violation of a policy that is common accross all Wikipedia languages and projects, namely the prohibition of role (or shared) accounts. As such, it is subject to an immidiate indefinite block.

However, I have not done so. The difference here, is that you folks are established users with an excellent record of contributions. People generally like you, and you always come accross as really freindly (something I know I have failed to maintain in the past).

The problem I have run into, and that I have put up for discussion here, is that we can't really block you, because you are two great users. But we can't not block you, because you're account violates Wikipedia policy.

The matter is currently under discussion (which I felt you should know about), though things are looking up in your favor. Thanks for reading, and if this blows over, congratulations on being the first ever non-Foundation related role account allowed on Wikipedia.

New Hampshire born and raised, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy the tempest in a teapot. JOG, though a good admin, is regrettably mistaken—we'll find it very easy indeed not to block you. Have a nice day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Role Account - User:Hydnjo (From WP:AN)[edit]

I don't want to do this. They are great users who've been around for a while. But, it goes without saying that User:Hydnjo is a role account. Period. Thus, shouldn't they be blocked? The answer is yes, of course, but I haven't blocked them yet because these are two very nice users that folks generally seem to like, who have never hidden that the account was shared (although, unless I've missed something, it hasn't really been pointed out that it is technically a role account) and who contribute good work to the project. This is a tough call: We have a job to do, which will risk losing two great users, or we have a job to ignore, which makes our jobs harder in the future. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A husband and wife role account, I say not to block as they are good faith editors, and it's not like they share their account with a group of friends, etc. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Apply common sense. They're good, nay superb, editors. Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly, no. The only reason we block role accounts is that it we don't know exactly who mades which edit, for GFDL purposes; but in these cases, where two individuals are closely connected, there is an extremely low probability of any trouble if the exact person is not identified. (Is the husband going to sue the wife for a misatributed Wikipedia edit? No. Come on.) As they are not causing any trouble, but the contrary is true, there is no reason to block. Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing on meta about GFDL issues, although even Hydnjo's contributions could be a theoretical concern if GFDL is an issue. I think a bigger picture needs to be reviewed here: does allowing the first and so far only non-Foundation role account force the community into creating a process of role-account-approval? Because, you know, what's good for the goose... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is most likely not the first shared account, nor will it be the last; it's just being pointed out right now. We do not suggest using accounts this way ever, but no harm no foul. What's the worst case scenario here, they get divorced and havea custody battle for their edit attributions? — xaosflux Talk 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, if you 'don't want to do this'...then don't. For one, it's bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT. To wit, "If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong..."; "[one should not]use...Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy." Suggesting that we ban two perfectly good and highly productive editors because you believe that there has been a breach of a technicality is...well, how about you tell me? What do you hope to accomplish by this?
Second, it's only a rather ungenerous reading of the rules that would demand that the account be blocked anyway. From WP:SOCK#Role accounts (my emphasis):
Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on en: Wikipedia in exceptional cases at this time. The one currently permitted role account on en: is User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.
We should congratulate the exceptional editors Hydnjo for their unofficially sanctioned role account that, despite the likelihood that it would be blocked, hasn't been.
Finally, Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. If the sockpuppet policy lags a bit behind actual practice, or fails to exhaustively describe and consider all possible situations, we ought to update the policy or – perhaps more wisely – simply acknowledge that this project's rules are necessarily flexible sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a husband and wife team and they're good editors then let them be. I think it's sweet. Ask yourself WWJD? ("What would Jimbo do?") --mboverload@ 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind the current role account policy? ~ PseudoSudo 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Umm *blush*, if this is of any help, I'll add that I (Joe) have been doing all of the keyboarding (see [1][2][3][4]). Although the username in question is indeed a neologism constructed from our names, and although many first person references are plural, I find no evidence that this problem is anything more than a tribute to my wife's inspiration to and patience with my WP contributions. In that way, she feels a part of the goings on around here and I see nothing wrong or confusing about that. Thanks to all for your kind words of support. --hydnjo talk 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate Jeffrey Gustafson sharing his concerns; that is the correct action, of course. However, I agree with the others that I don't feel any further action is necessary. I believe following the spirit of our policies is far more important than following the letter; they are not laws which we must abide by (nor is the lack of a policy automatically make an action acceptable). I think this is just one of the areas we use our judgment; I've been aware of Heidi and Joe's shared account for quite some time now (and I consider them wiki-friends), but I am quite comfortable in my assessment that community opinion would favor their continuing. I don't really see how GFDL could be a concern if we allow edits from unregistered users. Of course, I'd be unlikely to support a shared account gaining access to administrator privileges. — Knowledge Seeker 07:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem here. In my opinion anything which helps blind people contribute is probably a good thing. Haukur 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the support for Hydnjo. A husband providing all the keyboarding for himself and a legally-blind wife who would have some difficulty keyboarding otherwise is a very different situation from a dozen employees using an account to edit an article on their company (for example). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In my view, this account is technically really only used by Joe... it is just that Heidi gives him most of the suggestions and advice... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The circumstances here are unique. There appears to be no problem whatsoever, and no likelihood of a problem. Consensus is obviously strongly in approval. The blindness issue mentioned demands special dispensation. There are always exceptions - this is one of them, but it should be noted it is a very specific exception. Tyrenius 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Judge Mills Lane "I'll allow it." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem with this account. Everything posted to Wikipedia from that account is posted by Joe. As I see it, he (they?) chose the name Hydnjo to emphasize the sharedness of their thoughts, since Heidi is blind and cannot post messages herself. It's not as if Heidi logs on on Monday and Joe on Tuesday. Nor do I think that Joe types his own posts on one occasion and has Heidi dictate to him what to say on another. As far as I know, every use of first person singular referred to Joe, but he used the username to acknowledge the influence she has on his thoughts. AnnH 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone blocks this account, I will unblock it and block the block-ity block block blocker for being a total blockhead. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, as it goes against an obvious community consensus for special dispensation. Tyrenius 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we can say that this is our "officially sanctioned" role account, and if so, could we ammend the role account section to include this account? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a role account. If only one person is doing the posting, then it is a one person account. There is no rule against allowing others to look over your shoulder. Even if it were a role account, obviously it is non-abusive and should not be blocked. NoSeptember 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my *one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


In response to the whole fiasco[edit]

I'm glad things were fine, and I don't know why he did it, but I can assure you that you won't have to look over your shoulder. Your edit history speaks for itself, and you have enough admins backing you up that any time anyone wants to block you for being a role account, you will be immediately unblocked by everyone else, and the original blocking you will likely be "talked to" very quickly. So don't worry, most of us are on your side. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Absofuckinglutely. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And hey, I've enjoyed collaborating with you so far, so please continue as before.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was quite pleased to express my support. You are a fine editor(s) and I am glad to have you on the project. I don't think you need to worry about this situation coming up in the future. Should someone express concern, he can be directed to this discussion; further, I fully expect an outpouring of support, as in this case. You should continue as before. I'd also like to express my support Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions. I think he acted quite appropriately; it is admirable of him to bring up a potentially concerning issue, even if it's a difficult one. You shouldn't take it personally; he went to lengths to explain his concerns with the issue despite your great contributions. He didn't push the issue once the consensus was clear, nor did he get angry or defensive. In fact, it perhaps is a good thing he brought it up so that the matter could be settled once and for all, instead of always remaining a potential problem. Perhaps you should thank him for sharing his concerns and enabling the matter to be properly discussed. I look forward to running into you again. — Knowledge Seeker 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget, you now have permission to vote twice on everything ;-). NoSeptember 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I propose that we re-open the whole debate on the basis of MPD? Just kidding. No I'm not. Yes I am. - Abscissa 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very well-reasoned and diplomatic response. It is precisely because of this constructive attitude that I was so quick to offer my support of you in the first place. I appreciate it, and I'm sorry for any stress this experience may have caused you. — Knowledge Seeker 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)