User talk:Stokesnet

Hi there! Stokesnet, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Stokesnet, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Kennedy Meeks, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

• ...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
• ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
• ...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
• ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
• ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. —Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am brand new to posting on Wiki. I am not a sock puppet. I am the director of a nonprofit and I've been having my interns create Wiki articles. So far, we have posted Sr. Evelyn Mattern and Helen Gray Crotwell. Today one of my interns was trying to change a picture on the Kennedy Meeks Wiki article, to change from a fat picture of Meeks to a more recent picture. She changed the picture & then it got changed back. She was very careful to upload the picture and credit it properly. But then someone changed the picture back. She tried a couple more times. Then I tried. We do not know why someone is so determined to post the rather unappealing picture of Mr. Meeks. Anyway, I did not reallize I was breaking a Wiki rule. I have not posted any articles yet myself, but I did go to a Wiki workshop at Duke University this spring and I did create a Sandbox. I would like to be unblocked to I can continue to create Wiki articles, to help my interns and staff learn about Wiki, etc. I finally turned Wiki off this afternoon after failing at the attempt to change the pictures. I saw some notice about not responding fast enough or something. I simply couldn't figure out HOW to respond. I'm sorry for whatever rules I broke. Thanks for reading this and considering unblocking.

IN THE FUTURE:

I will never try to damage or disrupt Wikipedia.

I will study the rules of Wiki.

I will create articles and help my staff create Wiki articles on women in our field.

I will stick closely to the pages I create and the ones my staff creates.

I cannot find any wiki editors within my network of colleagues and friends. I would like to improve my skills so that I can assist others (especially women) to function well in the Wiki world.

If I want to make changes (more than a minor change) to another page, I will seek help from an Administrator.

If I try to make a change and it is UNDONE, I will stop and seek advice from and Administrator before proceeding. Stokesnet (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I've just read through this, and I'm shocked. Copyrights are one of the most misunderstood concepts on Wikipedia, verification and sources is not too far behind, I lament the loss of the "orange bar" making it more difficult for people to tell if they have messages, and - most importantly - a block with a sockpuppetry message might as well say "get lost" no matter how well intended. I think we should apologise and unblock this user. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC) }}[reply]

I have closed the unblock request as there is no consensus to unblock at this time. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know about the picture you tried to use, it was not compatible with Wikipedia' copyright policies in that it was not released under a suitable licence and did not satisfy the project's free use criteria (and it has now been deleted because of that). Mr Potto (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Mr. Potto. (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I also see that another of the accounts that has been editing in conjunction with you has repeatedly stated that the picture was being removed at the request of the subject. The subject of a Wikipedia article does not own that article, and has no right to demand removal of content they don't like. Anyone acting on instructions from the subject of an article they are editing has a conflict of interest, and should not be making those changes to the article. At the most, they should suggest the change, so that one or more independent editors can decide whether it should be made. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that, Mr. Watson. We did not understand that. Stokesnet (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba, Bbb23:, please review the above unblock request, a plausible explanation for what was observed. A bit more showing good faith is available by private email but the request above pretty much tells the story. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 03:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it for an uninvolved admin to consider the unblock request. However, I'm not seeing an explanation on what, if any, behavior will be different if an unblock is granted. I'd suggest Stokesnet reread the guide to appealing blocks, as well as the guideline on sockpuppetry, particularly the sections related to WP:MEAT and WP:COWORKER in relation to the evidence collected at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PWfellow/Archive. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me through this process. I appreciate all these comments. Stokesnet (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I REQUEST the block be removed. It’s not necessary for these reasons:

I was not trying to damage or disrupt Wikipedia. I did not understand the rules.

I (Stokesnet) am not a SOCK PUPPET or a MEAT PUPPET. Pls see my contribution history: I created Sandbox in March, did a bit of editing, and only realized I needed a User page a few days ago.

I’ve read sections on Meat Puppets and CoWorkers.

I have read the section on Coworkers. I was working with my intern, Mwrcwms. We were in the same office hence same IP address.

I was BLOCKED for trying to remove/replace a picture at the request of the subject, which I now understand is AGAINST THE RULES. (I now understand a replacement picture & REQUEST can be submitted.)

When asked to respond to a message from an Administrator, I did not yet understand how to use the Talk page, so I simply stopped, as did Mwrcwms. We may have been blocked in part for not responding. I was NEW. I should NOW have been trying to edit a picture when I was so new.

I have NOT MET the subject, am NOT a basketball fan, and was responding to a request from the subject (a student in a class where Mwrcwms gave a lecture). I now understand that’s against the rules.

As a NEW editor, I thought an unkind person kept putting up the "fat" picture of the subject (Kennedy Meeks). Didn’t understand an authorized administrator was involved or that I was breaking a rule. Didn’t understand this might be a "high profile" Wiki page or that there was a review process for changing pictures.

I apologize for being new and ignorant.

IN THE FUTURE:

I will never try to damage or disrupt Wikipedia.

I will study the rules of Wiki.

I will create articles and help my staff create Wiki articles on women in our field.

I will stick closely to the pages I create and the ones my staff creates.

I cannot find any wiki editors within my network of colleagues and friends. I would like to improve my skills so that I can assist others (especially women) to function well in the Wiki world.

If I want to make changes (more than a minor change) to another page, I will seek help from an Administrator.

If I try to make a change and it is UNDONE, I will stop and seek advice from and Administrator before proceeding.

THANK YOU for your consideration of this request. I am more than happy to provide more information an answer questions.Stokesnet (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stokesnet, first, you should not have two unblock requests open at the same time. I've therefore converted this second request to additional comments from you in support of the first request. You have to wait until there is a decision made on the first. Second, you should be requesting an unblock from the master account, not this one. Finally, and related to my second point, the only other account you've disclosed is Mwrcwms. What about the others?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you so much for suggestions in navigating the Wiki system.

Oh dear, I broke yet another rule. New editors much be super annoying for Administrators. So sorry. Thank you so much for fixing that.

Other accounts: I am not connected to nor have I worked on Wiki with any other accounts. If there was another account involved in the picture changing, I do not know much about it. The first attempt to take down the picture may have been made by the subject himself. I do not know him. I do not know of other accounts.

Master Account: I'm not sure what you mean by master account. I only have one account--Stokesnet. It predates the events of July 9, 2015. The owner of Mwrcwms is away from office, computer, etc. for a few days. Are you saying that the unblock request should be made by that account when the owner returns? Since I'm blocked from editing Wiki, I can't place a request on Mwrcwms's Talk page. I can be patient.Stokesnet (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other accounts, your unblock request states: "I would like to be unblocked to I can continue to create Wiki articles, to help my interns and staff learn about Wiki, etc." However, above you stated: "I am not connected to nor have I worked on Wiki with any other accounts." Can you clarify the specific accounts you are related to, and in what capacity? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your patience and understanding. I hope to explain some things so you understand what's going on.

Everyone makes mistakes, especially newcomers who don't know the rules. Wikipedians generally try not to bite newcomers. There are essays like WP:IGNORANCE that refer to Hanlon's razor. I don't mean to say you're ignorant and/or stupid; you just didn't know our rules and norms. The problem in this case is that you and at least one other new editor seriously violated a stringent policy about copyright. That you did so even after Bagumba's welcome and warning made action necessary. You probably didn't even see that little grey box next to your username at the very top of the page turn red but it was there. Look for it in the future; somebody's trying to tell you something and it may be important.

You've heard the saying, If it looks like a duck. On Wikipedia, that is explained in WP:DUCK. When Bagumba saw two users making the same improper edits, he correctly began to investigate. Recognize that you and others working on computers in the same office look like one computer. All of the computers are most likely configured the same by an IT manager and all connect to the Internet through the same router. From a technical standpoint, it looks like the same computer operated by the same person. From both technical and behavioral standpoints, it looked like either one person was using multiple accounts, sock-puppetry, or that person was directing or influencing associates, meat-puppetry, to violate strict Wikipedia policies. You can see the investigation at SPI PWfellow. It's customary to name the oldest account that appears to be operated by the same person as the Master account or sockmaster. PWfellow gets the blame for starting a sock farm and for creating or influencing the other accounts. The custom is for unblock requests to be initiated by the sockmaster but that's not a firm rule or guideline.

Administrators and functionaries are bound by stricter rules than ordinary Wikipedians. Bagumba won't unblock because he is WP:INVOLVED (more of the wiki-jargon you learn if you'll please stick around and help build the encyclopedia). Bbb23 would only unblock if the block was a mistake but the block was based on solid evidence so he, too, is involved. The norm is that an independent administrator will look at your request and the evidence, consult with others involved and then make a decision whether to unblock or not. A different checkuser may (likely will) be asked to have an independent will look at the technical evidence and advise the administrator considering act on your unblock request.

Because we're all volunteers, it will likely take some time for the admin' checkuser who's considering your unblock request to contact everyone. Recognize that the evidence that you and others who were blocked colluded to violate Wikipedia policies is pretty strong and there's quite a bit of discussion above and even here.

I predict that you will be unblocked. Wikipedians tend to assume good faith. Your explanation is plausible and I consider your unblock request convincing. The admin' considering your unblock request may ask more questions or ask for clarification on some issues before actually unblocking you.

Each of your co-workers will probably have to make a separate request to be unblocked, stating clearly that they understand the guideline on sockpuppetry, particularly the sections related to WP:MEAT and WP:COWORKER, and that they will follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the future.

I am a mentor in the WP:Co-op. I pretty much already adopted you although the Co-op would like for you to formally join. I will gladly help you create a userpage and talk you through placing the {{User shared IP address}} there if you're unblocked fairly quickly. If the reviewing admin' decides not to unblock at this time, indefinitely doesn't mean forever.

Once you start editing again, use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD). Even though administrators are helpful, especially when dealing with newcomvers, their time is usually pretty limited because only they can deal with things like unblocking. Discussing changes on article talk pages or in user talk pages is usually all that's needed. Lot of other ways to get help such as through the Co-op or Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you find this helpful and I hope to see you again editing productively in the very near future. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctree: Wow, that's a mountain of advice. Just briefly. This is a checkuser block, so the user may only be unblocked by me or by another checkuser, no doubt after discussion with me. I am not WP:INVOLVED in the policy sense. However, I wouldn't decline the request because, just as with any block, the blocking administrator does not decline unblock requests. As for your predictions, no comment other than to say that the user shouldn't rely on them. I do think it's kind of you to take all this trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: FWIW, Wikipedia:Appealing a block uses involved: "Usually, if it's a clear cut case, any uninvolved (independent) administrator will make a decision." As Bbb23 alluded to, the issue is more with declining an unblock request, as opposed to agreeing to fully undo the block.—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:

I'm responding to a question posted by Bagumba who posted 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) This was the question: Regarding other accounts, your unblock request states: "I would like to be unblocked to I can continue to create Wiki articles, to help my interns and staff learn about Wiki, etc." However, above you stated: "I am not connected to nor have I worked on Wiki with any other accounts." Can you clarify the specific accounts you are related to, and in what capacity? Thanks. My answer: Thank you for the question.

"I can continue to create Wiki articles, to help my interns and staff learn about Wiki, etc." means that by July 9 (the day I was blocked) I had only just begun to encourage my current intern and our staff to learn how to be Wiki editors. Is that a bad thing? I do not intend to control those people or their Wiki accounts. I do not intend to ask them to be sock puppets or meat puppets for me. Is it a bad thing for Wiki editors to know one another or to work in the same office? (I keep being surprised by the rules.)

"I am not connected to nor have I worked on Wiki with any other accounts" means that I have only one Wiki account (Stokesnet). I do not own any other wiki accounts. I am not connected to or related to any other accounts, except that I have an intern with an account, Mwrcwms and she and I tried to change a picture on July 9, for which we were both blocked.

Is that what you were asking? Stokesnet (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctree: Thank you for sharing all of this information. I will look into the Coop.Stokesnet (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctree: I tried to join the Co-op, but after I filled out the form and clicked the button (join or whatever it was) nothing happened. I may be blocked from the Co-op.Stokesnet (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, Bagumba: Thank you again for all of your attention, time, and information.Stokesnet (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional advice: Firstly, you should look up Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest and consider whether some additional disclosure is appropriate. For example, what is the non-profit you direct, and how is it affiliated with, say, Kennedy Meeks? How do your interns even know what image Meeks prefers, and why did your non-profit attempt to bring the Wikipedia article in line with Meeks' wishes? Such a disclosure may be required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, but even if your interns and you technically don't meet those standards, it would probably still be a good idea. Secondly, when your interns and you edit the same page, you should be particularly careful about disclosing your association with them. For example, tag-teaming to remove an image, or to argue for the same outcome on a talk page without disclosure, will be considered meatpuppetry. Huon (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Thank you for this information and suggestion. The nonprofit is over 30 years old, has nothing to do with basketball, and has no relationship with Mr. Meeks. My intern was asked to give a lecture in a university class on communications. The intern is very new to Wiki editing, but had more information about Wiki editing than the professor and the students in the class. Why was she invited to speak? A random conversation with the prof. at an event brought about the invitation. Mr. Kennedy was in the class and simply asked if the intern could do anything about the picture on the Wiki page on which he is the subject. The intern's only affiliation with the student was one chance meeting in a classroom. The intern is not a student in the class, but was there only once to give a lecture. The intern does not know Mr. Meeks and isn't a basketball fan, but was simply trying to do a kindness for another human being. The intern did not understand that removing the picture and replacing it with a newspaper picture was a gross violation of Wiki rules but understands that now. (Violation because 1) she was doing it at the subjects request and 2) using a photo with a copyright on it.) I was trying to assist the intern with the technical part of this, I did not then understand the violations, and I have no relationship with Mr. Meeks or his college, nor do I care one way or the other about basketball. Does living in the same state with Mr. Meeks constitute a conflict of interest? Does that clarify? Should I add this info. to the request to be unblocked? Stokesnet (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your patience and cooperation in this matter. As you may have already read at WP:SOCKBLOCK: "Wikipedia admins can never be absolutely sure about sockpuppetry, and the most abusive users can be very devious in attempting to evade detection. If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." Understand that while Wikipedia does assume good faith, suspicion of sockpuppetry also needs to be investigated thoroughly also.

You have stated that you are only affiliated with User:Mwrcwms, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PWfellow/Archive had suspected other accounts were related as well. You have also stated that you and Mwrcwms have edited Evelyn Mattern and Helen Gray Crotwell. There is a concern that the same articles were edited by users PWfellow, Mollyw838, and Evelyn Mattern—all mentioned in the aforementioned investigation—as well.

Perhaps more an issue for Mwrcwms than yourself:

1. The page User:Evelyn Mattern was created by Mwrcwms at 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) [1][reply]
2. The user account Evelyn Mattern was created at 19:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) [2]
3. User Evelyn Mattern starts editing the page at 19:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC) [3]

I also see that PWfellow and yourself both signed up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Durham,_NC/Women_at_Duke_2015#Attending. Earlier, you posed the question: "Does living in the same state with Mr. Meeks constitute a conflict of interest?" I am not sure why you would have the impression. Some editors undoubtedly overlap as far as their home state if not even cities. The overriding concern is when behavior of accounts gives the appearance that they may be the same editor, or editors banded together. Thanks for your understanding.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Thank you so much for helping me understand various issues on Wikipedia. It is very kind of you to explain. I totally assume that everyone is proceeding in good faith. I realize that I may never be allowed to edit again. As with legal issues--ignorance is no defense.

The User Account: Evelyn Mattern, was a mistake. In my ignorance while trying to make very small corrections to the Wiki article called Sr. Evelyn Mattern, I inadvertently set up a User page called Evelyn Mattern. I did not intend to use it for anything. I did not know and still don't know how to disable it and take it down. If you or someone could dismantle it, that would be a kindness.

u|Mollyw838. I don't know about that user account.

User:PWfellow was an intern for us during this past academic year. That intern is gone now. I did make some minor corrections to an article she wrote. I was proofreading. Was that OK, or should I have used another process for minor corrections such as spelling?

PWfellow and I did attend the Wiki event "Women at Duke" in the spring of 2015. We wanted to learn to write and edit Wiki articles. We had read that there were not enough female Wiki editors. We got a very elementary introduction and, as I now can see, a little bit of information can be a very dangerous thing. PWfellow did create one article about a now-deceased woman she found interesting, Helen Gray Crotwell. PWfellow no longer lives in our area and has gone off to study in another field. (Our field is religion--the mainstream kind.) I did make a few small corrections to her article, corrections that could be called proofreading. Should I not have made that correction? I'm really not trying to be flippant here, I'm really trying to understand who is allowed to make minor changes. Women like to work together on all sorts projects (there is a lot of research on that), so if I'm ever allowed to edit Wiki again, I'll need to understand more about what constitutes "being banded together."

You asked, "Earlier, you posed the question: 'Does living in the same state with Mr. Meeks constitute a conflict of interest?' I am not sure why you would have the impression. Some editors undoubtedly overlap as far as their home state if not even cities." My answer: Because I live in North Carolina, which is unlike any other place I've lived. Many people are, shall we say, overly enthusiastic about b'ball. People get accused of being UNC fans if they wear a light blue shirt (UNC's color. I do know that much.) Anyone who lives in NC could be accused of having a conflict of interest, since basketball is one of the main (what would you call it?) exports of the state. I did not go to UNC, I am not a UNC fan, I'm not even a basketball fan, but I do live in this "basketball" state. I'm really interested in the rules about "conflict of interest," but enough for now.

"I did make a few small corrections to her article, corrections that could be called proofreading. Should I not have made that correction?": The sock investigation started on your account when Mwrcwms and yourself continuously reverted the photo at Kennedy Meeks, a behavior known as edit warring on Wikipedia. Certainly accounts with like interest also sometimes edit war, but it is frowned upon when the accounts are sock puppets, controlled by the same user, or meat puppets, accounts of different people brought in primarily to advance a preferred position. There was initial behavioral evidence that the accounts were related, and a checkuser confirmed that the accounts, including yours, were at the very least operating from the same location. Wikipedia allows for editors to be notified of ongoing discussions. However, it is preferred that such communications are done online, and not offline. As far as conflict of interest, the guideline described it as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships." An interest in basketball or religion, on it own, would not be a COI, per se. It's not unexpected that most editors carry some level of interest in the topics they are editing.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: The CU confirmed significantly more than just the location. With the exception of the master, whose edits were much earlier, the accounts were  Technically indistinguishable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Yes, I intentionally stated "at the very least operating from the same location" to be conservative. I wouldn't have any objection if Stokesnet was given some WP:ROPE, but I'm not privy to the full CU details nor am I an expert in interpreting the results, and the full disclosure of relationships to the other accounts perhaps could have come quicker on Stokesnet's part.—Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I was aware of your language precision, which is why I clarified it for you rather than correcting you. In my view, late or not, it makes some of Stokesnet's claims implausible.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba and Bbb23: Many thanks for discussing all of this. I do not understand all of the fine points of your discussion. I'm wondering what I can do to help with transparency. I am trying to offer information as quickly as I understand it is being requested. I'm sorry if I was slow in responding to any concerns, charges, or requests for information or response.

I'm wondering which part seems implausible and what else you would like to know. I'm a 64-year-old female, with one degree in mathematics and one in theology. I took my first computer course in 1971, but I knew almost nothing about editing Wiki until this spring. I am an ordained Presbyterian minister, the director of a nonprofit organization that I started in 1977 to be supportive of women in and entering ministry. You might want to look up the nonprofit: rcwms.org. I lead workshops. I marry people. I bury people. I write, edit, and publish books. I have published two collections of essays and two memoirs of my own. Would you like to read those? I can send you the titles. They are all available on Amazon. Would you like my email address, which you might trust, because it is so close to my Wiki username.

I have a deep appreciation of copyright laws in the USA and I have a deep appreciation of the way copyright applies to images on Wiki. I consult with copyright attorneys when anything our nonprofit is publishing raises questions. I met a man this spring who teaches internet copyright law at Duke, and he was eloquent in discussing the ways in which even elementary school children are taught to misuse images on the internet. Would you like his name? I thought I was being very careful about adding the citation and the link for the picture we were trying to change. I had no that 1) we were not supposed to work together, 2) that I was not supposed to make an attempt repeatedly, 3) what an editing war was, or idea of the 3-strikes rule. I would never have violated a copyright rule or a sock puppet rule had I understood them 4 days ago. I have no interest in violating copyright rules. I spent months one time trying to figure out if we could appropriately use an image in video that we produced and now sell. I went all the way to someone who teaches and researches the subject of copyright at a university.

I simply did not know what I was doing was wrong. If that is the implausible part, then thank you thinking I understood stuff when I was blundering through. I was totally acting in the dark. It might be hard for experienced editors or administrators to understand how totally confusing and mystifying Wiki is to a newcomer like myself. I've spent hours and hours in the last few days reading in Wiki and online to try to understand how an editor should operate. I think I'm catching on. Is that implausible?

Thank you for considering giving me some rope. I would be happy to hold one end and let an Administrator hold the other end so that I might stay within the rules. Is there a "dingy" arrangement available? This does not mean that I'll never disagree with another editor, but now that I'm learning about the talk pages and a bit about moving around on Wiki, I think I'd know how to get instruction and assistance instead of bull-headedly trying to make it work the way I want it to.Stokesnet (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to WP:SIGN your posts (click on that little pencil at the top of the edit window when your cursor is at the end of your post or you can add four tildes). At a minimum, what's implausible is your claim that you do not know the account Mollyw838. I'm not saying it's not possible, just not likely. Unfortunately, I go by probabilities; certainties are few and far between.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you. Will do, re: signatures.

I do not have any direct knowledge of who Mollyw838 is. Should I guess? Which page history does that user show up in? Is there a way for me to look that up myself?

Additionally, I have been polling my colleagues and friends to see if anyone else I know has a Wiki account. Have only turned up one person so far, and I don't know that person's user name. I'm astounded that I can't find anyone (besides my two interns PWfellow and Mwrcwms) among my friends and colleagues who have Wiki accounts. Stokesnet (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at things while blocked; you just can't edit. However, you of course have to know where to look. Mollyw838 was created on July 7 and made one edit the same day. See Special:Contributions/Mollyw838. That shows the edit. If you click on "User rights" at the bottom of the page, that shows the date the account was created. There's nothing wrong with friends or colleagues having Wikipedia accounts. The problem is when there's actually only one person having multiple accounts or more than one person having different accounts but editing with a common purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Hmmm. Am I interpreting this right? I tried the "compare" function. That's pretty amazing. So, all of the versions of an article are actually saved in the history? That's very cool. (I wish WORD worked that way. I'm always having to create new versions of things I write so I don't lose the old ones, just in case they were better.) Am I right that the edit made by Mollyw838 was adding an external link? I wonder if my intern created a second Wiki account for herself. If she did, could she have thought they were like email accounts, that everyone has multiple ones. I'd like to understand the rule. Is the rule that individuals are only supposed to have one Wiki account? Oh, wait, I GOOGLED this and found "Using Multiple Accounts." OK, so this signing up for Wiki is more like registering to vote (should only do it once) than signing up for email accounts. Got it. (I wish that had be clear when I signed up for my account in March. Not that I ever made more than one, but I could have fallen in that hold unknowingly the same way I fell in the sock puppet/meat puppet hole totally unaware.)

The rules about having multiple accounts or cooperating with other people must seem obvious to an experienced Wiki editor, but it's not obvious to me. In journalism, newspaper reporters sometimes work together on articles. Authors work together in writing textbooks. In my office, the books we publish have a team of editors who work together on editing a manuscript. We like this sort of collaboration and it improves the end product. I'm willing to learn a different process for Wiki, but i need to understand it. Is the rule in Wiki editing that only one person should work on writing an article? Who would proofread an article for a person like me who is not a great speller? Since nothing in a Wiki article is supposed to be original, this seems a confusing rule to me. Anyway, is an article I can read on collaboration and what kind of collaboration is against the rules on Wiki?

I'm afraid I'm asking too many questions. Stokesnet (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your WP:PATIENCE. I'm learning a lot. I not only watchlisted this page, I bookmarked it. I'm likely to refer to it in discussions of how some Wikipedia pages might be better worded to help prevent a situation like this from being repeated or becoming common. I also participate in edit-a-thons. The WER at the end of my signature refers to WikiProject Editor Retention. I help newcomers in hopes that they will continue editing. I've reported sockpuppets, even started a rather infamous SPI. I'm a bit older and male; see more about me on my userpage. Just click on my name in my signature. And now to answer some of your questions...

The Guild of Copy Editors is an amazing group of WikiFairies and WikiGnomes who make our clumsy prose and misspelled words into something beautiful and encyclopedic. They're Wikipedia's proofreaders, usually working quietly in the background. Look at any Wikipedia article and click on the View history tab at the top and you'll see the work of gnomes and fairies cleaning up after those who write the articles. I never learned the difference between a hyphen, minus sign, em-dash and en-dash but there are a couple of WikiGnomes who understand the difference and fix my ignorance after I just type.

Wikipedia:Collaborations gives a rather formal description but most collaborations are far less formal. Working on the same article with friends and associates is great as long as you don't gang up to improperly push a particular point of view in violation of WP:NPOV or try to influence the outcome of a deletion discussion or similar activity, or to WP:EDITWAR. Collaborating is good. Multiple users working together to violate policy isn't.

If your intern created more than one Wikipedia account, she needs to fess up. Isn't the first time a newcomer didn't know the rules. In her unblock request, she should state that she will only use (give the chosed username). If/when unblocked, the other account(s) will remain blocked. If you find someone who created multiple accounts that aren't blocked as sockpuppets, advise them to pick just one to use to edit Wikipedia. Then go to the other account(s) preferences one last time and create a really long random password of letters, numbers and symbols and save it without writing it down. That prevents someone else from hacking and using it.. and prevents inadvertently logging into it or being tempted to use it improperly.

Keep asking questions and explaining your misunderstanding of Wikipedia. It's enlightening for me and may help others in the future. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 06:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctree: Thank you again for information and suggestions. I'm learning so much. Thanks for what you do to help new editors.

I located a Wiki class on editing Wiki. Would you recommend this as part of my "rehab," just in case I'm ever allowed to edit on Wiki again? I think it is here: [4] It looks like it is designed as 6 weeks. I probably should have done something like that before I ever started, but I didn't know what I didn't know. Stokesnet 45.37.73.194 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you will learn much in a Wikipedia editing class. More likely is that you could contribute to the class. If the class is no-cost, please attend. I've helped teach part of a class sponsored by a public library intended to help technophobic seniors and retirees to use the Internet. It's great to learn from others. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that signature looks funny. Our intern, Mwrcwms, is back from being away and is probably on Wiki reading about what has happened. I hope she will respond on her user talk page today. Stokesnet45.37.73.194 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has initiated an unblock request at User_talk:Mwrcwms#Unblock_Request.—Bagumba (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Thank you for letting me know. Stokesnet 45.37.74.155 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pile on more rules, but editors with accounts are generally encouraged to not edit while logged out. This also explains your above observation that your "signature looks funny". Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am grateful to be informed of any rules. I didn't realize I was logged out. Now I know what that funny signature means. Stokesnet (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't stop; take a detour instead. Wikipedia and related projects are driven by the community and consensus. Indefinite doss not mean forever. Read the standard offer. Many, maybe most, Wikipedians agree with it. It is one of the main ways for a blocked or banned editor to return to the English Wikipedia.

• Follow the policies and guidelines: Be sure that you don't edit while logged out. Caution others in your office to not edit while logged out. Stay on your own user talk pages until the block is lifted. Any edits to other parts of Wikipedia from your office IP will appear to be WP:Block evasion.
• Show reasons that unblocking you will benefit Wikipedia.

Although you are blocked from editing the English Wikipedia, you aren't blocked from helping on other projects. I suggest Wikimedia Commons and the Simple Wikipedia. All you need to do is click on those links while logged in to go to those projects as a registered user. The Simple Wikipedia is to the English Wikipedia kind of like World Book Encyclopedia was to Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a challenge to write clearly using simple words and short sentences (ask any author of children's books). The policies and guidelines are similar and editing is almost identical to editing the English Wikipedia. You can learn a lot while contributing to Simple and doing so will show that you _DO_ contribute productively. I suggest you get involved in Commons because copyright of an image was what got you and your intern into trouble here. Read about licensing and international copyright law and how it is applied (or not) by the Wikimedia Foundation.

There are hundreds of ways to get involved. Take photos with your digital camera to upload. Wander through the categories at the bottom of WP:Requested pictures to see if any are local. Visit the special collections at local libraries to find historical documents that you may be able to photograph. Learn the ins and outs of the Commons Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS) that is used to obtain release of images and document licensing. Wander through nearby counties listed in the National Register of Historic Places listings in North Carolina to look for articles that either don't have photographs or that have few or poor quality ones. Will you visit a couple of those places, take some pictures and upload them to Commons? Getting involved in and contributing to other projects will be pretty convincing evidence that you will be a valued contributor to the English Wikipedia if you you are unblocked. I find making those kind of contributions educational and fun (see pictures at Weston (Casanova, Virginia)).

If the unblock request above isn't approved, you aren't excluded from the Wikipedia community forever. Show the community that you contribute productively elsewhere and you will likely be welcomed back in the future. Ping me when you're ready to ask for consideration per the Standard offer. I suspect that Bagumba may be willing to help and, as an administrator, his opening the ANI might carry more weight. For now, take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctree: Thank you so much for your info and advice. I'm traveling at present and trying to stay off the computer. I did look at the standard offer, and it looks like nothing usually happens about a request to unblock for at least 6 months, so I'll mark my calendar for January 9 and pick up that conversation again then. Meanwhile, I'll look at the Commons some more. There's a building in NC that has recently been designated as an endangered property by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I could post on the Commons any photos I take with my own camera or phone. At least that is what I understand you to be saying. I'll also consider posting other pictures. (I take a lot.) I'll have to learn about the organizing/filing system on the Commons.

I'll continue studying the rules. I consulted with an Internet professional who works at a nearby university who spent a whole day reading all the Wiki rules before ever posting for the first time. Meanwhile, I greatly appreciate you assistance. I'm having trouble combatting the feeling that it is simply too hard to be part of the Wikipedia community, too complicated. (In my reading about women & Wiki, it seems to be a reason the lots of women simply give up or never try.) I'll try to hang in there. My only suggestions (I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to offer feedback from a beginner) for how others might avoid the holes I fell into are to make it clear to new editors that they:

- should only set up one Wiki user account (I didn't see that anywhere until I did serious hunting for something about multiple accounts. Never occurred to me that multiple accounts might be a bad thing.)

- should be very careful about collaborating with other editors

- know that all written text should be cited from published sources (That is pretty clear in early instructions on writing your first article.)

- but should understand all images must be original and owned by the editor (except for the special exceptions listed in image policies.) Images are an opposite logic from words. That was really confusing at first.

- and should understand how to respond to messages from other editors or administrators. (That was not clear at all. Once we were in trouble we didn't even want to try anything and didn't yet know what a Talk Page was.) It's a little like giving a teenager the car keys without teaching them the traffic laws.

When I tell friends and colleagues I've been blocked from editing Wiki (I hope telling them is not against another rule that I've failed to read) many have responded that they have seen ads or materials that invite them to edit Wiki, welcome everyone, and make it sound easy. These people are surprised to learn that I got in trouble so quickly, because they think of me as someone who follows rules. I'm not trying to be critical at all. I'm just saying that a bit more info and more warnings up front (of course you can't make people read if they won't) might help new editors from breaking rules of which they are ignorant. One page or one article that hits the "easiest ways to get in trouble" or "mistakes new editors make" might be helpful. Perhaps that exists and I missed it. Thanks so much. Stokesnet (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thank you for letting me know that the unblock request is closed (in your message higher up on this page, dated 29 July 2015). Can you tell me if that is forever and always? Might it be a good thing for me to make another request next year? I know that no one can tell me what would happen then. (I also want to thank you for saying that your think I should be unblocked. I would have responded to you sooner, but I was away for a week and not on the computer much.) Stokesnet (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: @Doctree: @Bbb23: Any further suggestions at this point? I will continue to study Wiki and participant in the places that Doctree has suggested about (like the Commons). Thank you for your efforts to educate this beginner. Stokesnet (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stokesnet, I would say that you should wait six months (see WP:SO) and then assuming you've not used any other accounts (and you shouldn't allow other people to use your computer. either), you can renew your unblock request, at which point it will be considered, both with the history to date as well any relevant history between now and then. I'd also give more thought to what it is you want to use Wikipedia for. That's often useful for understanding whether a person is going to be using Wikipedia in a manner that benefits the project (not just them). I hope that's helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you for your response. That is very helpful. Stokesnet (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: @Doctree: @Bbb23: I have a question. Someone pointed out a error on the Wiki page titled "Evelyn Mattern." A nonprofit is mentioned: Student Action for Farmworkers. The CORRECT name of the organization is Student Action with Farmworkers. Since I'm sure Wiki prizes accuracy, I was wondering whether one of you might be willing to make the change. If you want to doublecheck me on this, you can go to the group's website: https://www.saf-unite.org/ Thanks for considering my request.Stokesnet (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that someone could not make the edits? Honestly, if I got involved in that article, I'd probably remove sections that are entirely unsourced, including that sentence with "Student Action for Farmworkers" that is not cited. As a volunteer here myself, it's not something I want to get into right now, especially as I have no familiarity with the subject.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stokesnet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to request that I be considered for unblocking. I made a terrible mistake nine months ago when I posted a picture (a nice picture) without understanding all the copyright rules of Wikipedia. Stokesnet (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for uploading a picture, you were blocked for WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla:I'm wondering whether I might be permitted to explain. Last year, two of my interns and I were learning to edit Wiki pages together. So, we were all working on pages together. In that way we appeared to be linked, and I guess we were, but not for any evil purposes. Each of the interns has now moved to other parts of the country and the world. (One is in medical school and one is teaching English on the other side of the globe.) I don't know if they will have further interest in Wiki editing. We were not trying to be sock puppets. I have waited more than 6 months to ask again whether I might be considered for unblocking. Perhaps you can tell me what the best way to proceed might be. I would like to correct some spelling errors in pages we were editing last year. Stokesnet (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly a candidate for unblocking. I see there are a number of accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PWfellow/Archive. Is it your preference that you use this account? And please note that you were blocked because it was inappropriate to have multiple editors act in concert, as you did. That's covered by WP:MEAT. This is often a difficult line to draw, exactly, so I'd like you to restate the 'meatpuppetry' guidelines in your own words. Just two or three sentences should be fine. Then I will take a look and consider lifting your block. You certainly don't have to jump through my hoops, you can just request another unblock and another admin will be happy to review it, but please understand that I'm not asking you to jump through these hoops to punish you in any way, but rather to make sure you understand this particularly tricky bit of Wikipedia policy. If you don't, I think now's the best time to clarify it for you. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thank you so much for considering my request. An intern and I had just been to a Wiki workshop at a local university and were trying to learn together and work together. We were beginners (it can be dangerous to be new to a system). I think learning together was fine and working together online, on Wiki, was not fine. I will be glad to restate the meat puppetry guidelines in my own words.

SOCK PUPPETRY is an attempt to hide one’s identity while editing a Wiki page. It is sock puppetry when a user creates new accounts to disguise the users identity, uses another User’s account, or tries to use older User accounts that have not been used in a long time. So, it’s an attempt to hide one’s identity while editing a Wiki page.

MEAT PUPPETRY would be asking other Wiki users to help me in a campaign to influence what’s on Wiki. (I can see why this would be a huge problem, because people can get into big disagreements about what should be said on Wiki about a person, subject, or event.) It is meat puppetry when users join forces or gang up to try to influence or win an editing dispute or to influence an editorial discussion or a decision that is being made by an editor at a higher level of Wiki (someone with more authority). We engaged in meat puppetry when an intern and I each tried (alternately) to change a picture on a Wiki page. I'm not sure about this part, but I think it may also be meat puppetry if multiple users create or edit a wiki page together.

Lastly, you asked if it is my preference to use my Stokesnet account. I think that was your question. I don't have any other Wiki accounts and was told that I should not attempt to create any, because that is sock puppetry. So, yes, it is fine for this to be my Wiki account. Was that your question? If there are other accounts associated with my account, those would be accounts created by my interns for their own use.

Your summary of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT is appropriate. I have unblocked your account as I think it is clear you understand the relevant policies. You are welcome to blank your user page (User:Stokesnet) or I can do so if you wish. It's unlikely, but in the immediate future you may hit what's called an 'autoblock' which prevents you from editing. This will clear up automatically in about 24 hours but if it hits, let me know and I'll help you figure out how to get that cleared. Welcome back! --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:Thank you so much. I will proceed with caution and follow the rules. I'm not sure how to blank a page. I'll capture all the text (if I may) for future reference. It would be great if you would do the blanking in a few minutes. Stokesnet (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be able to view the current state via the history, or by following this direct link: [5]. I'll go and blank it now. --Yamla (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:Thank you so much.