User talk:Tataqp
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
[edit]
|
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Tataqp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not have an opportunity to respond to this sockpuppetry allegation until today. I respectfully request that my account be unblocked. Tataqp and AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing are the accounts of two separate people, although we both work at the same company. Being new to Wikipedia commenting/editing, we apologize for not being aware of various rules and administrative procedures which, in our experience over the past couple of weeks as Wikipedia neophytes, seem overwhelming and somewhat bewildering. Initially, we did not know that two people could not use the same account. We now each have our own account — and there did not appear to be any prohibition against two people from the same company commenting/editing (see “Usernames implying shared use” at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names There was never any intent to deceive, so I hope you will take into consideration our newness with the commenting/editing process. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thank you. --Tataqp (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocking per the below discussion, where Tataqp accepted Piotrus's offer of mentorship to help avoid future COI issues. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment. User:SubjectiveNotability/User:GeneralNotability, the blocking admin, noted on their talk page that "I have no objection to another administrator unblocking them if they accept the explanations offered by the two editors.". Interested editors, including Tataqp, are welcome to read the entire discussion at User_talk:GeneralNotability#Question for context and some thoughts on best practices. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Tataqp, can you clarify what sorts of edits you intend to make if unblocked? signed, Rosguill talk 04:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill - new user replied below - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rosguill, in answer to your question, the edits I anticipate would be to correct factual errors, and contribute information where I have pertinent facts. In this connection, I'd like to explain how I got here because whatever faux pas I've made in Wikipedia practice were inadvertent. We received Google Alerts on March 8 and 9 linking to Wikipedia about one of our books (The Auschwitz Volunteer, by Captain Witold Pilecki). When I read the pages, I noticed two factual errors: the book was described as a diary and it said that Pilecki was in Auschwitz for about four years. The book was not a diary (which implies that it was written during his time at Auschwitz), but his most comprehensive report of more than 100 typed single-spaced foolscap (long format) pages about his Auschwitz mission which he wrote more than two years after he had escaped from Auschwitz, and just before he embarked on another undercover mission (he had written two much shorter reports on his time in Auschwitz -- I believe they were about 11 and 20 pages respectively -- shortly after his escape, in addition to all the intelligence he had smuggled out during his time in Auschwitz); and he was in Auschwitz for two years and seven months, not four years. I wanted to correct these errors, and knew that a coworker had successfully corrected an error in an unrelated article on WWII German codes so I asked for his log in -- not realizing that two people are not supposed to use one account. I made the corrections and expanded on the article, but when we checked back a few days later, they had been removed and my coworker's account blocked until he changed the name. Trying to figure out how to proceed, I started my own account and began clicking through some references and links, one of which led me to the arbitration page where it appeared that folks were basically providing their opinions, so since I felt I had a different perspective I offered my opinion as well. I also noticed on at least one of the pages I ran across that one writer was making disparaging remarks about our company in an apparent attempt to discredit us and our books -- as I recall, it was the same person who made the untrue sockpuppet allegation which led to this block on my account, although because my account is blocked I can't find that page right now. I would like to respond to his remarks about us, but am not sure where the best place is to do that. We are a small independent publisher, not a vanity press as he wrongly describes us, and we are certainly reputable. I would be happy to go into more detail, or answer any additional questions you might have. Thank you for your consideration -- Tataqp (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Engaging with editors that are criticizing your employer sounds like a pretty clear case of a conflict of interest. You also need to acknowledge that multiple editors editing on behalf of the same company is a a form of sockpuppetry, especially if not properly disclosed. Regarding the edits you intend to make, what sorts of articles do you intend to fact check and expand? signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill, Thanks for replying but I am not sure I understand. First, I have not "engaged" that other editor; I have never interacted with him/her – as I indicated in my previous reply, I’m unsure how to even do that. I am just saying here I find their attitude towards me -- and my workplace -- offensive and not at all respectful. If one editor attempts to disparage another, is there any recourse at all? Is there some procedure where we may introduce facts to set the record straight? I came to help Wikipedia by correcting some errors in my area of expertise. I have made a total of only two posts -- one trying to correct factual errors in an article (described above) and the other offering my thoughts on an arbitration regarding a topic where I have professional experience -- and frankly, I am taken aback at the unfriendly welcome I’ve received.
- Rosguill, in answer to your question, the edits I anticipate would be to correct factual errors, and contribute information where I have pertinent facts. In this connection, I'd like to explain how I got here because whatever faux pas I've made in Wikipedia practice were inadvertent. We received Google Alerts on March 8 and 9 linking to Wikipedia about one of our books (The Auschwitz Volunteer, by Captain Witold Pilecki). When I read the pages, I noticed two factual errors: the book was described as a diary and it said that Pilecki was in Auschwitz for about four years. The book was not a diary (which implies that it was written during his time at Auschwitz), but his most comprehensive report of more than 100 typed single-spaced foolscap (long format) pages about his Auschwitz mission which he wrote more than two years after he had escaped from Auschwitz, and just before he embarked on another undercover mission (he had written two much shorter reports on his time in Auschwitz -- I believe they were about 11 and 20 pages respectively -- shortly after his escape, in addition to all the intelligence he had smuggled out during his time in Auschwitz); and he was in Auschwitz for two years and seven months, not four years. I wanted to correct these errors, and knew that a coworker had successfully corrected an error in an unrelated article on WWII German codes so I asked for his log in -- not realizing that two people are not supposed to use one account. I made the corrections and expanded on the article, but when we checked back a few days later, they had been removed and my coworker's account blocked until he changed the name. Trying to figure out how to proceed, I started my own account and began clicking through some references and links, one of which led me to the arbitration page where it appeared that folks were basically providing their opinions, so since I felt I had a different perspective I offered my opinion as well. I also noticed on at least one of the pages I ran across that one writer was making disparaging remarks about our company in an apparent attempt to discredit us and our books -- as I recall, it was the same person who made the untrue sockpuppet allegation which led to this block on my account, although because my account is blocked I can't find that page right now. I would like to respond to his remarks about us, but am not sure where the best place is to do that. We are a small independent publisher, not a vanity press as he wrongly describes us, and we are certainly reputable. I would be happy to go into more detail, or answer any additional questions you might have. Thank you for your consideration -- Tataqp (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Second, I am not editing “on behalf of the company,” nor am I being paid to edit Wikipedia. Is a professor at XYZ University who edits articles in his area of knowledge considered to be editing on behalf of that university? I just came to Wikipedia because I wanted to correct some clear factual errors related to issues I am deeply familiar with as they relate to my professional background. Would it be better to let those errors remain?
- I apologize that we were not aware that two people from the same company cannot both participate in the same discussion (which occurred only once, on the arbitration) – even if they raise different points. Now we know that, and it won’t happen again. But wouldn’t a polite warning have sufficed? I stated in the first sentence of my comment on the arbitration that I’d never commented on Wikipedia before (indicating that I was a newbie), and I also explicitly identified myself as a publisher in the topic area under discussion (not trying to hide my interest), although I did not name my company because it was my understanding that editors were anonymous and it was forbidden to “out” an editor. My colleague, who commented later, used the company name in his ID, so clearly there was no intent to deceive. My account has been blocked because of the false allegation that we are one person with two accounts, which is simply not true.
- To help me understand best practices, can you tell me how Wikipedia volunteers disclose their connection to their workplaces while still remaining anonymous, and how do you manage your conflict of interest when editing topics that have some relevance to places you work? Wikipedia seems to have a lot of complex rules that I am obviously unaware of or struggle to even find.
- Regarding what I intend to edit. In the near term, I’d like to correct the errors and expand with verifiable facts the article I described in my previous response. I also noticed a Wikipedia article on Jozef Garlinski, and have a photo of him with permission from his family to upload, that I thought would enhance the article. Another topic that is missing from Wikipedia, which I think would make a great addition, is the Book of the Bunker at Auschwitz, the handwritten notebook kept by prisoner-clerks recording who was brought to the bunker where interrogations, torture, punishments and executions occurred, and what happened to each of them – when I searched Wikipedia I could find no reference to it.
- Finally, perhaps it would be a good solution if a more experienced editor would be willing to take us under his/her wing and advise us as to best practices?
- Once again, thank you for your consideration,
- --Tataqp (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tataqp, you can find our conflict of interest guideline in full at WP:COI, which should address your various questions. Could you clarify whether there is any connection between Aquila Polonica Publishing and the two topics that you identified? signed, Rosguill talk 23:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill, as I mentioned in my first response, the article that contains the errors is about a book published by Aquila Polonica. The Book of the Bunker is mentioned in another book we've published, but is well-known to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum where in the course of my work I've met with the Head of the Archives who kindly showed me the original notebooks along with other precious records, and I assume is also known to other scholars.--Tataqp (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I noticed the request above "perhaps it would be a good solution if a more experienced editor would be willing to take us under his/her wing and advise us as to best practices". I would be happy to act as a mentor here, starting with advising Tataqp that out of the proposed edits, the last two seem fine, but regarding the book published by the company they are working for it is best practices to first propose any changes on the talk page and then see if there are any objections. I would be happy to review any such proposed edits that may fall within some COI. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Piotrus, the mentorship offer does allay my remaining concerns regarding COI. Tataqp, are you ok with accepting an unblock on the condition that you are expected to check in with Piotrus about any potential COI issues with subjects that you edit? signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill, @Piotrus, Yes, thank you, and I appreciate the offer of help from Piotrus. This help will hopefully prevent any future problems. --Tataqp (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tataqp, First, let me welcome you back. Second, technical note that @ symbol doesn't work on Wikipedia. To properly echo/ping someone, you need to link their username, like this User:Piotrus (code is [[User:Piotrus]]) or use a template (sample code {{ping|Piotrus}} produces @Piotrus:). Third. You are generally free to edit anything you like, but as noted above, per best practices, if you would like to edit something about your company or books published, it would be best to first suggest the edit at the talk of those articles (and ping me for speedy review). Anything else should be fair game and you don't have to ask about it, although of course if you were to add a mention of your book's existence that would also be something worth pinging me for a review. But again, 99.999% of articles are safe to edit, which also includes topics like let's say Witold Pilecki. Common sense, any COI anyone would be concerned is would be related to the "promotion" of your books, but it doesn't stretch too far. Please feel free to ask me any questions, you can also email me using the email function if you'd prefer to communicate this way, although I generally suggest on-wiki discussion. PS. Regarding the photo you mentioned, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials guide. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Piotrus, thank you Piotrus. And for your technical help:-)
- Tataqp, First, let me welcome you back. Second, technical note that @ symbol doesn't work on Wikipedia. To properly echo/ping someone, you need to link their username, like this User:Piotrus (code is [[User:Piotrus]]) or use a template (sample code {{ping|Piotrus}} produces @Piotrus:). Third. You are generally free to edit anything you like, but as noted above, per best practices, if you would like to edit something about your company or books published, it would be best to first suggest the edit at the talk of those articles (and ping me for speedy review). Anything else should be fair game and you don't have to ask about it, although of course if you were to add a mention of your book's existence that would also be something worth pinging me for a review. But again, 99.999% of articles are safe to edit, which also includes topics like let's say Witold Pilecki. Common sense, any COI anyone would be concerned is would be related to the "promotion" of your books, but it doesn't stretch too far. Please feel free to ask me any questions, you can also email me using the email function if you'd prefer to communicate this way, although I generally suggest on-wiki discussion. PS. Regarding the photo you mentioned, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials guide. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill, @Piotrus, Yes, thank you, and I appreciate the offer of help from Piotrus. This help will hopefully prevent any future problems. --Tataqp (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Piotrus, the mentorship offer does allay my remaining concerns regarding COI. Tataqp, are you ok with accepting an unblock on the condition that you are expected to check in with Piotrus about any potential COI issues with subjects that you edit? signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tataqp, you can find our conflict of interest guideline in full at WP:COI, which should address your various questions. Could you clarify whether there is any connection between Aquila Polonica Publishing and the two topics that you identified? signed, Rosguill talk 23:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)