This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
WP's sock puppet policy should be changed
I believe Wikipedia's blocking policy regarding the creation of sock puppets is unfair. Users shouldn't be blocked simply for creating sock puppets, but rather for using sock puppets to vandalize. Those users who use sock puppets to make good faith edits should not be blocked.
A few years ago my account was unjustly blocked. I then created sock puppets to continue editing but they were blocked simply I had become a puppet master. I created several more and those were eventually blocked for the same reason. I recently changed ISPs, thus allowing me to change my IP address. I created a new account and I can now edit in peace but it shouldn’t have been this hard.
Also, this policy turns many admins into witch hunters who block accounts merely because they SUSPECT an account is a sock puppet. This practice resulted in blocks to two accounts that weren’t mine. One remains blocked to this day. The other was unblocked but only after several angry messages between the user and the blocking admin.
Given this situation, I'm sure there are countless editors in my situation that edit for the betterment of Wikipedia but who are considered abusive simply because they have blocked accounts in their past.
I suggest we change this policy to one where destructive and/or rude behavior is punished with a blocked account without blocking subsequent accounts created by the offending user as long as he/she edits in good faith.
By the way, don't bother using this message to trace me. I'm using an anonymous account at a public library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.195 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- If someone has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and would like to change, and resume editing under a single account, what should they do? I don't see such advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No one will be accused of sockpuppetry unless their edits remind other editors of the kind of edits made by the blocked user. Once it is clear from behavior that there is an active sockpuppet, it should be blocked and reverted without bothering to read the contents of the edit. The block is sufficient proof that editors need not waste their time reading the edits, because they are unlikely to be of any value. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To SmokeyJoe: People who have been blocked for violating any of Wikipedia's policies may appeal their blocks. In order to succeed, appeals usually require an admission of the violation and a sincere promise to avoid future problems. (Of course it's also possible to successfully appeal by proving the allegation was wrong.) A standard requirement in the case of socking is to go without socking for a period of time. Such advice doesn't really belong in this policy though,m as it's more relevant to the general appeal information already contained in WP:BLOCK and WP:APPEAL. Will Beback talk 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the information is at WP:APPEAL, which is where it should be. Should this page have a link to there? Or does a block user, when logging in, receive a message that points them to WP:APPEAL? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- MediaWiki:Blockedtext is shown when a blocked user trys to edit a page. It includes information on how to appeal a block. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the information is at WP:APPEAL, which is where it should be. Should this page have a link to there? Or does a block user, when logging in, receive a message that points them to WP:APPEAL? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- To SmokeyJoe: People who have been blocked for violating any of Wikipedia's policies may appeal their blocks. In order to succeed, appeals usually require an admission of the violation and a sincere promise to avoid future problems. (Of course it's also possible to successfully appeal by proving the allegation was wrong.) A standard requirement in the case of socking is to go without socking for a period of time. Such advice doesn't really belong in this policy though,m as it's more relevant to the general appeal information already contained in WP:BLOCK and WP:APPEAL. Will Beback talk 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question - I got blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry as a newby and before I even knew what a sockputtet was, and I acterd foolishly. I learned a hard lesson. I have since changed my username but that doesn't get rid of the past history. Since then I've been working hard to redeem myself on Wikipedia, and to be a constructive editor. Is there a way to wipe the slate clean with my new username without having to create another new (third) Username? I like the one I have now. Austex • Talk 16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- As noted below, the wording here also ignores the reality of blocks of IP addresses. When I was getting started, I was blocked from opening an account due to a "range block" which said merely "sockpuppet investigation". That block of IP addresses (dynamicaly assigned by the provider) means that WP blocked several thousand people for a sock puppet investigation on one person. When I inquired about this in one of the "answer" sections they just wrote "tell your neighbors to stop vandalizing" which was a ridiculous answer on several levels, including that there was no indication of vandalism, nor even of confirmed sockpuppetry. Plus he wanted me to go confront and accuse several thousand neighbors on the off chance that one of them might be the person being investigated for sockpuppetry. North8000 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Clarity of CLEAN START and prior blocks
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus is that the wording, which explains that a user may make a clean start where there are no editing restrictions in place and so return to editing with a clean sheet, is appropriate. There is no rationale attached to the wording, though it is implicit that the intention is to follow the spirit of Wikipedia's founding principle that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and productive editing is to the benefit of all. As for the point that bothersome editors may take the principle of cleanstart to create another account which causes problems, and there is no previous record, it was felt that a bothersome editor would do that anyway, and does not negate the principle of cleanstart which is aimed at encouraging editors to engage positively and productively with the project. SilkTork * 9:29 am, 4 August 2010
Question: Is it the intention of this policy page to allow any editor with a prior history of blocks in a specific topic area which have expired, to invoke WP:CLEANSTART and retire their old account, register a new account, and return to that area, without revealing their previous account name?
If so, does the wording of the current policy page make that as clear as possible, by giving the principles and reasons why this is allowed?
If not, does the wording of the current page make that as clear as possible, by giving the principles and reasons why this is not allowed?
MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Rationale
My rationale for the Rfc existing. Not particularly important for the Rfc question, but may provide context. MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
I do not believe the current policy is clear enough either way, and I have recently expended a lot of wasted time at ANI over a specific case, only to end up with not much more clarification, and effectively be flipped off by a few admins, who think there is nothing wrong with the current wording. Here is why I think the policy needs clarification :
|
Discussion
I'll start it off by stating the more obvious cases of CLEANSTART. For example, an account gets blocking for blatant juvenile vandalism or otherwise juvenile trolling and then comes back later under a new account and is not doing any of that stuff; that is fine. I think it's most of the stuff past that which is under dispute. –MuZemike 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that attempting to technically forbid CLEANSTART is almost certainly impossible - new accounts on new IPs that are carefully managed cannot be linked to prior accounts. However, supposing we had a magic crystal ball that could identify such accounts, it's pretty clear that there are some cases where an account's crimes are beyond the pale and their return should not be countenanced; examples: uploading images of child pornography, issuing credible threats of violence against other editors, and basically anything else that would get them arrested in real life. These editors present a serious and direct threat to the project.
- Now here are some more ambiguous cases. I've seen some editors who have a history of subtly undermining the project by posting elaborate hoaxes, engaging in sneaky vandalism, posting large amounts of copyright violating material to many articles (see WP:CCI), uploading large amounts of copyvio images claiming that they are the copyright holder, and so on. Although many such users are repentant, some demonstrate an inability or lack of desire to learn and are eventually blocked. It'd be very stressful for our cleanup crew if they had to go through this same taxing process more than once with the same exact person - yet if such a person truly did learn the error of their ways we would welcome them back with open arms. In these cases, I think the best solution is to treat these users with less tolerance and patience than we would a "fresh" user - a sort of "half clean" start, if you will.
- In short: if I had to choose a criterion to distinguish users who should receive a "clean" start from users who should receive a "half clean" one, it would be based primarily on the amount of time and effort the community has already expended on dealing with them. We can block the same blatant vandal over and over all day long, with less effort than it even requires to identify them as a sock account. It's the ones that cost us that should be shown less tolerance. Dcoetzee 05:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that there are 4 classes of users who shouldn't be allowed a clean start:
- Blocked users - if your main account (or anything which ever was your main account) is blocked, you may not go for a clean start. (This obviously doesn't apply if the only reason for the block is the user name.)
- If you've been blocked repeatedly, you may not go for a clean start for a significant period of time. (The precise amount of time should depend on the duration of the disruption, the severity, etc.)
- If you're currently under any restriction which doesn't apply to all users (including ArbCom topic bans, conditional unblocks, etc), then you may not go for a clean start without permission from ArbCom.
- If you have a history of sock puppetry blocks, you may not go for a clean start
- עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think #1 and #3 above are already excluded by the current wording of WP:CLEANSTART. Adding wording along the lines of #2 would be a great addition to the criteria. It is not a never but someone with a history of multiple blocks would have to prove that they have changed. #4 is troublesome to me, it is saying to me that if they have a history of sockpuppeting they must carry that with them forever. I think this could be rolled into #2 but the period of time would have to be very significant. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that there are 4 classes of users who shouldn't be allowed a clean start:
- Don't ask, don't tell is my own preference, based on carefully managing users as a MUD administrator. If the administration bans (same word, slightly different meaning, mud vs. wikipedia) you for misbehavior, you're never allowed back without appeal, and always allowed back if the administration can't figure out that you are who you were. Thus, a user "A" tries something spectacularly bad that forever ruins their reputation and no one will ever after take them seriously as a contributor. If that user comes back later, now as user "B", and manages his or her behavior such that there is no way for any user to credibly suspect that "A" is "B", then no biggie: the user is interacting with the online environment in an acceptable manner. But if there is ever cause--through behavioral similarities, associations, pet topics, etc.--that B used to be A, the full force of A's sanctions slams down on B once the association is admitted or proven to the administration's satisfaction. It's pragmatic, in that it acknowledges the reality that we can't ever stop dedicated people from reappearing, yet just in that it enforces a death of personality on the prior account. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good rule, in spirit. As a practical matter, if a previously problematic user now has a lengthy pattern of edits that shows he is repentant, then even if he is outed (e.g. on the 30,000th edit, he forgets to login and reveals his IP address), probably people will be willing to forgive and let bygones be bygones. Plus, users who don't misbehave tend to draw less scrutiny, which makes it less likely anyone will connect the dots. Lastly, those who take a long wikibreak are even less likely to be the subject of a sockpuppet investigation tying them to the banned users, because people forget about the old account, or assume the person left. All of these are good things. Tisane talk/stalk 06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think as long as your blocks and editing restrictions have expired, a clean start is perfectly reasonable and helpful. If someone abuses it by doing the same things in the same area over and over again it will be really obvious. If they keep being jerks in different areas, that's more tricky, but I'd think fairly rare and nearly impossible to catch anyways. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Hobit. A CleanStart should be allowed for anyone as long as they have no active blocks, bans or sanctions. Unless they decide to tell someone and they keep clean it would be virtually impossible to know what their previous username was. We should assume good faith that they have made a legitimate CleanStart. Now this doesn't mean if they start editing in the same way as a previous editor with a history that we need to forget about the history at that point. The Duck test should still apply and if they go back to old ways they should be treated like the old account because then it was not a Clean start. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, in practice editors who are blocked or banned for agenda-driven editing (POV-pushing, antagonizing editors perceived as enemies, COI problems, tendentiousness on a topic, etc) don't magically reform themselves when they start a new account. If the editor gets into any conflicts at all in the same territory where they were blocked or banned, the new account is almost by definition a good hand / bad hand problem. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not as an exercise in freedom of expression. The harm done to the project, and toll taken on the well behaved good faith editors, from letting problem editors return to their old ways is far too great. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- And yet, Wikidemon, how are you going to catch such editors? And if you do catch one with a history of being clean(under their new name), what are you going to do with them? Ban them anyways? I see no reason to hold such an unenforceable, potentially detrimental rule. That being said, CleanStart certainly shouldn't apply to editors causing problems again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiathal (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the current clean start policy works moderately well and is a mostly sensible response to our current situation. That said we could change our current situation, our policies on retention of IP data and not doing fishing trips probably haven't changed in years. Diskspace and processing power are now much cheaper so we could keep IP data for longer. We could also have bots or edit filters that actively looked for signs of the return of serious miscreants. Also we need a couple of tweaks. currently we have two different bits about informing people. One to Arbcom and the other to the crats. My understanding is that the Arbs have to verify their identity with the office so they can handle confidential stuff like this, whilst crat chats are held in the open which would make it awkward if they had to evaluate something confidential. So unless anyone objects I'll standardise the policy to informing Arbcom. Also we need to be clearer as to whether former admins etc can take a clean start and not declare it at RFA. My view is that an outed and retired admin who doesn't want their real life identity linked to their return would be welcome to do a cleanstart without even telling arbcom they were back; But someone who was desysopped should not run at RFA without at least Arbcom agreeing they can exercise cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Answer: my reading of the WP:CLEANSTART policy is that it is clearly permitted for somebody who has a prior history of blocks in a specific topic area which have expired to stop using their original username and start a new account, but the reasons and principles behind this are not elucidated explicitly. Also, users are strongly encouraged to notify the arbitration committee if they wish to create a second username, as such notification is evidence of good faith. And they should avoid engaging in the type of behavior that got them blocked in the first place, because if they do so then the community might just ignore the clean-start policy. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Answer - "You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions. Failure to do so may be considered deceptive, and as such be poorly received by the Wikipedia community." --GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Simplicity The simple thing would be that anyone can come back for a clean start after 365 days if the new user is productive (and no hair splitting about the definition of the word productive). Sometimes tempers flare and then there is bad blood but after a year if someone comes back to write for Wikipedia, they should be allowed. Many people who are really bad probably can't resist the temptation to be bad but if they have matured then who are we to have a grudge. The key is that the new user is productive. So it will be very simple....if you want a clean start and it is less than a year, you need to meet the criteria; if greater than a year and the new user is unquestionably productive, then it's probably ok. Note that I am not advocating coming back but just trying to be sensible. If someone is in a fight about climate change, if they decide to come back in a year and not get into climate change fights, let's leave the person alone. RIPGC (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- CLEANSTART is for people who are not currently blocked or banned. The Standard Offer is for people who are currently under sanctions. The main difference is timing (if we've had to waste so much time evaluating your edits and imposing sanctions, then we deserve a break from you) and the non-anonymous nature: You need to disclose your plans (to a small, confidential group) -- and if you don't, then you're WP:SOCKing and can be blocked when/if identified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
On the warning about real-world consequences
- reason for revert?
- [1]
How can employers trust the Internet these days where trolls are lurking around saying malicious information about others? There are other things to look at such as the résumé. Friends and peers as not all are “seriously affected”. It’s purely subjective and should not be included there. Abusing multiple accounts is not a crime BUT when doing it for antisocial or illegal purposes and in some cases could be dangerous to society is a crime. Please discuss why this is not valid reasons. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to warn people who don't know when to not tell people about their Wikipedia accounts. It's ridiculous. Do we need a warning telling us that if we don't eat we will starve to death? ShadowReflection (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you re-read what is written there, it says that abusive sockpuppetry could seriously affect not friends, peers, etc. but what they may see when they look you up. And there is no need to remove this advice. –xenotalk 20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, what friends or peers think about is purely subjective. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not really the best advice coming from the opinions of others, now is it? ShadowReflection (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow. We're cautioning users against committing sockpuppetry because, if caught, records of the same will exist on Wikipedia and may be found by any number of folks which may temper their opinion of the sockmaster. What benefit will be had removing this advice? –xenotalk 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- So what about the users who have already committed sockpuppetry? Now it gives other editors the right to try to annoy them? The warning is like a threat to those who have already committed sockpuppetry that there are others who will annoy the sockmaster. And that won't help sockmasters to stop socking. It becomes an endless cycle. If you are trying to discourage people from socking, why threaten users who already committed sockpuppetry? They already did it. They can't change it. The warning is pointless to them which should be removed. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The warning is not for them, and I have no idea where you got the idea that it gives others the right to try to annoy them. –xenotalk 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it's not for them, then the warning should be removed. The goal of the sockpuppetry policy is to discourage socking and prevent sockpuppetry abuse. I don't think it's fair to punish sockmasters like that. They have all their personal information revealed about them. Some editors take pleasure in reporting their sockpuppets and revealing personal information regarding their editing. Personal information could be harmful not to the sockmaster but for other people who know them. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- "The goal of the sockpuppetry policy is to discourage socking and prevent sockpuppetry abuse." Agree, which is why we've got that warning as to the real-world effects committing sockpuppetry could have that you're seeking to remove. The rest, I have no idea where you coming from, and am rather confused as to interest in this subject especially given that you "just started editing Wikipedia". –xenotalk 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, you don't understand what I am saying here. The warning only benefits those who never committed sockpuppetry. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. –xenotalk 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- But what about those who did? I don't think it's fair for Wikipedia to punish them like that. They probably didn't know what socking was before. The warning should be removed if it only benefits one party. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking back at the archives, it appears it has already been discussed. See Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Seriously.3F Sockpuppetry is a crime.3F.21. There has already been consensus just no one was bold enough to remove the warning. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus one-way-or-the-other there. –xenotalk 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Camelbinky and the IP anon think that the warning should be removed. Isn't that not consensus? And I'm another editor so 3 people agree. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- And about as many disagree... I think it's important to give this fair warning, as we do keep records of socks which are public - but you are free to initiate an RFC on the matter, or we can wait for more opinions... –xenotalk 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- 3 editors already want the warning removed. Obviously the warning should be modified as a negotiation. So far no one has done that. If no modification is done, then the entire warning gets removed by default. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- And about as many disagree... I think it's important to give this fair warning, as we do keep records of socks which are public - but you are free to initiate an RFC on the matter, or we can wait for more opinions... –xenotalk 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Camelbinky and the IP anon think that the warning should be removed. Isn't that not consensus? And I'm another editor so 3 people agree. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus one-way-or-the-other there. –xenotalk 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. –xenotalk 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, you don't understand what I am saying here. The warning only benefits those who never committed sockpuppetry. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- "The goal of the sockpuppetry policy is to discourage socking and prevent sockpuppetry abuse." Agree, which is why we've got that warning as to the real-world effects committing sockpuppetry could have that you're seeking to remove. The rest, I have no idea where you coming from, and am rather confused as to interest in this subject especially given that you "just started editing Wikipedia". –xenotalk 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it's not for them, then the warning should be removed. The goal of the sockpuppetry policy is to discourage socking and prevent sockpuppetry abuse. I don't think it's fair to punish sockmasters like that. They have all their personal information revealed about them. Some editors take pleasure in reporting their sockpuppets and revealing personal information regarding their editing. Personal information could be harmful not to the sockmaster but for other people who know them. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The warning is not for them, and I have no idea where you got the idea that it gives others the right to try to annoy them. –xenotalk 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- So what about the users who have already committed sockpuppetry? Now it gives other editors the right to try to annoy them? The warning is like a threat to those who have already committed sockpuppetry that there are others who will annoy the sockmaster. And that won't help sockmasters to stop socking. It becomes an endless cycle. If you are trying to discourage people from socking, why threaten users who already committed sockpuppetry? They already did it. They can't change it. The warning is pointless to them which should be removed. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow. We're cautioning users against committing sockpuppetry because, if caught, records of the same will exist on Wikipedia and may be found by any number of folks which may temper their opinion of the sockmaster. What benefit will be had removing this advice? –xenotalk 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
← They didn't say they wanted the warning removed. They said it seemed harsh, etc. How's this for a compromise version? –xenotalk 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Law enforcement doesn’t care if you abuse multiple accounts, just like they don't care if you troll. Trolling is legal, apparently. Most people want people who troll to be in jail but that doesn't work in the criminal justice system. If the trolling becomes antisocial or illegal purposes and in some cases could be dangerous to society, then it is a concern to them. But other than that, no one really cares about trolling except for those who are stupid enough to feed the trolls. The warning is pointless, now that I see it again. It's pointless. Someone could be using their name to abuse multiple accounts on Wikipedia. I don't think it's fair for employers to take one look at their name on Wikipedia to see if they sockpuppet or not. It could be some other troll who used their name to abuse multiple accounts for fun. There is no way that employers would care about your name being used for multiple accounts. Wikipedia does not ask users to register with their real names so there is no way that any employer would know if the user is indeed the person who they are looking for. ShadowReflection (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the bit about law enforcement, for reasons that seem too obvious to elaborate further. It seems to me only prudent that people should be warned that getting banned, blocked, or getting other negative reactions on Wikipedia or other parts of the Internet can have a negative effect in real life. Whether you think it's fair or not it's a reality. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Zzuuzz just removed the law enforcement bit (though if you think that law enforcement doesn't use Wikipedia to look people up, just go talk to the guy who got delayed at the airport because his Wikipedia bio was vandalized to say he was a terrorist). As for the rest of it, you seem to think that our policy here will somehow dictate what an employer may or may not, should, or should not do. Obviously it won't, so we have the fair warning. –xenotalk 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I said that law enforcement cares if you are doing something antisocial or illegal which is why that guy got into trouble. ShadowReflection (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please look at my reasons above. I have explained it already. ShadowReflection (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your reasons still make no sense to me. I see you've removed the warning again [2]. I'm not going to revert, but I expect someone else will shortly. –xenotalk 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Shadowreflection, Consensus isn't about numbers, its about talking things through and trying to understand each other and resolve our differences. In this case are you sure its the warning you want toned down or is it the consequences we are warning about? We could of course modify the former, but as the consequences are out of our control, would it be fair to downplay them? ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted it. Furthermore, I happen to know that there have been RL issues for a number of sockpuppeteers. Some of the stories are quite well-known - Alison ❤ 04:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is the consequences of socking. As Xeno has said, that it “obviously won’t” clearly we don’t need the warning. We only warn people when there is obvious danger coming. There is no need to stir more fire when there was never danger to begin with. Just like the result of trolling can have, the victims can get upset and angry but in reality, law enforcement can’t do a thing about it. And that is why people don’t feed the trolls because no one cares. Same with people who abuse multiple accounts, no one cares in real life but Wikipedia editors and administrators. I’m sorry that Wikipedia folks feel upset when people sock but do you really think by threatening people to not sock will change anything? No. It’s childish and no one cares in real life. Anyway, Wikipedia editors and administrators doesn’t warn editors about socking, so I don’t see why the policy here is making a big deal of it here. If they can catch editors socking, then they will do whatever they can to catch them again and trip them over by not warning them and they we get blocked indefinitely. Bottom line is sockpuppetry is not something people get a warning on, and it is their responsibility to inform themselves of Wikipedia policies. I just don't see why the English Wikipedia has to provide a warning for sockpuppetry when other places don't. i.e. Simple English Wikipedia ShadowReflection (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I said our policy obviously won't affect what they do. I didn't say they obviously won't do it. Please do try to read more carefully to avoid unintentionally misrepresenting the arguments being presented, and also consider deferring in this instance to users, administrators, and functionaries, who have been editing Wikipedia for more than a couple days. –xenotalk 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I said. "It’s childish and no one cares in real life." Your reasons don't tell me why we need a warning. It's a policy, not to warn people. ShadowReflection (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Many of our policies carry warnings as to the potential consequences of failing to adhere. –xenotalk 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should carry potential consequences that affects within the Wikipedia community, not RL. This is fine. I have no disagreement with that. But if it impacts in real life, then that becomes the user's business not Wikipedia. This is just a potential consequence within the Wikipedia community: "The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and (potentially) "public record" discussion by other editors of your activities and other information relevant to your editing." ShadowReflection (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not limited to pointing out potential consequences within its own limited walls. The warning is mostly useless, but I don't see a problem with including it. --Onorem♠Dil 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a policy, not to tell others what to do. Users are free to do whatever they please. I don't think a warning to their real life should be included. Other projects don't include a warning because it's a bit harsh to remind sockmasters about the damage they cause. Some sockmasters have serious mental issues and to mock them by warning about their past misbehaviors doesn't seem to be humane. ShadowReflection (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The warning only encourages editors on Wikipedia to be mean to the sockmasters. That's what I mean by the warning is inhumane to sockmasters. If we remove it, perhaps editors here that report socks of sockmasters could refrain from being rude or try to scare them. ShadowReflection (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have undone the edit. I have explained my reasons here. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have changed the meaning of the warning altogether [3]. I disagree with the change, and don't think that you should be messing around with a core policy on only your second day of editing (especially when so many tenured editors are telling you why you are wrong), but will leave this to others to review since I'm already close or over 3RR. I would advise you to review our edit warring policy. –xenotalk 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- They said to not revert. They never said you can't undo an edit if you have discussed on the talk page and other editors that simply ignored you. Other people have agreed that the warning was harsh and should by default be removed. An IP anon have said to remove the warning. I have negotiated by modifying it. What is wrong with this? You modified the warning by toning it down. Toning it down doesn't do anything to tone the consequences of socking. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- In modifying it, you have changed entirely the meaning of the warning. –xenotalk 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- What I wrote wasn't inaccurate; this warning was just the opposite of your warning that states that those who abuse multiple accounts could have real-life harassment from people who look at their case. I think a warning that is about the user who abuses multiple accounts is more appropriate than one that is about those who never abused multiple accounts. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was inaccurate, I said that you replaced one warning with another that had an entirely different meaning. –xenotalk 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO the current version is unacceptable. The fact that antisocial behavior has consequences is the fault of the sockpupeter. It should not be written in a way that makes it sound like these consequences are negative behavior on the rule abiding people.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- What I wrote wasn't inaccurate; this warning was just the opposite of your warning that states that those who abuse multiple accounts could have real-life harassment from people who look at their case. I think a warning that is about the user who abuses multiple accounts is more appropriate than one that is about those who never abused multiple accounts. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- In modifying it, you have changed entirely the meaning of the warning. –xenotalk 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- They said to not revert. They never said you can't undo an edit if you have discussed on the talk page and other editors that simply ignored you. Other people have agreed that the warning was harsh and should by default be removed. An IP anon have said to remove the warning. I have negotiated by modifying it. What is wrong with this? You modified the warning by toning it down. Toning it down doesn't do anything to tone the consequences of socking. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have changed the meaning of the warning altogether [3]. I disagree with the change, and don't think that you should be messing around with a core policy on only your second day of editing (especially when so many tenured editors are telling you why you are wrong), but will leave this to others to review since I'm already close or over 3RR. I would advise you to review our edit warring policy. –xenotalk 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not limited to pointing out potential consequences within its own limited walls. The warning is mostly useless, but I don't see a problem with including it. --Onorem♠Dil 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should carry potential consequences that affects within the Wikipedia community, not RL. This is fine. I have no disagreement with that. But if it impacts in real life, then that becomes the user's business not Wikipedia. This is just a potential consequence within the Wikipedia community: "The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and (potentially) "public record" discussion by other editors of your activities and other information relevant to your editing." ShadowReflection (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Many of our policies carry warnings as to the potential consequences of failing to adhere. –xenotalk 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I said. "It’s childish and no one cares in real life." Your reasons don't tell me why we need a warning. It's a policy, not to warn people. ShadowReflection (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I said our policy obviously won't affect what they do. I didn't say they obviously won't do it. Please do try to read more carefully to avoid unintentionally misrepresenting the arguments being presented, and also consider deferring in this instance to users, administrators, and functionaries, who have been editing Wikipedia for more than a couple days. –xenotalk 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is the consequences of socking. As Xeno has said, that it “obviously won’t” clearly we don’t need the warning. We only warn people when there is obvious danger coming. There is no need to stir more fire when there was never danger to begin with. Just like the result of trolling can have, the victims can get upset and angry but in reality, law enforcement can’t do a thing about it. And that is why people don’t feed the trolls because no one cares. Same with people who abuse multiple accounts, no one cares in real life but Wikipedia editors and administrators. I’m sorry that Wikipedia folks feel upset when people sock but do you really think by threatening people to not sock will change anything? No. It’s childish and no one cares in real life. Anyway, Wikipedia editors and administrators doesn’t warn editors about socking, so I don’t see why the policy here is making a big deal of it here. If they can catch editors socking, then they will do whatever they can to catch them again and trip them over by not warning them and they we get blocked indefinitely. Bottom line is sockpuppetry is not something people get a warning on, and it is their responsibility to inform themselves of Wikipedia policies. I just don't see why the English Wikipedia has to provide a warning for sockpuppetry when other places don't. i.e. Simple English Wikipedia ShadowReflection (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your reasons still make no sense to me. I see you've removed the warning again [2]. I'm not going to revert, but I expect someone else will shortly. –xenotalk 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
After consideration of their edit history, I have indefinitely blocked ShadowReflection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an apparent sockpuppet of somebody. Sandstein 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted the previous policy edit based both on this fact and the comment I made above. I believe it's the appropriate thing to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Following this policy discussion, I honestly think we should eliminate all of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets but before I go that far, we need a policy on when people can tag others as suspected sockpuppets. Recent conduct has indicated that editors (even some administrators) follow a very liberal policy of any editor can claim someone is a sock and then those challenging that designation have to prove a negative[4]. Absurd requirement, especially when CheckUser evidence failed to determine the master (and no, we don't need rounds of "Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust" BS. See my full arguments at the policy discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- At the very least, we need to start pruning the nonsense out of those categories. We would never allow someone to allege that other editors are sockpuppets without reporting it to SPI. It's absurd to ask for less if they want to keep permanent tags on them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. If there is mere suspicion, the proper thing to do would be to ask the user on their talk page. This would be sufficient to bring out multiple suspicions, if they existed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- At SPI, we almost exclusively reserve tags for people who have been blocked. I don't think that anything more is proper. The category itself I think is acceptable as it is useful for accounts that have been blocked per WP:DUCK, but it should be limited to only those. NW (Talk) 12:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't mean admins (or editors even) are following that standard. I think I should just list the entire suspected category for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the category should be listified and protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've listed it for deletion. :/ I'm doubtful that will succeed (although the village pump was positive enough) but maybe we'll at least start to prune it. Perhaps only the actual SPI reports should be there instead of the individual userpages (listified as you say)? Yeah, I think that would eliminate a lot of the problems. Well, let's see. If it does get eliminated, I'll be glad to see Special:WantedCategories stop getting filled up with new ones and I think moving the focus away from "who is this person editing like" to "is this editor on its own be useful" will be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the category should be listified and protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't mean admins (or editors even) are following that standard. I think I should just list the entire suspected category for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
How strong is the duty to disclose old account in an RfA?
In a mini-debate at RFA Talk, there's discussion about adding a new standard question. The current proposal is going down in flames, but mainly because of the IP aspect of the question. I thought it would make sense to consider asking solely about prior named accounts (not IP), and checked here to make sure I understood the existing policy.
I find the following phrases (red added by me):
- You may not run for positions of community trust without disclosing the fact that you have previously edited under another account.
- When applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to the
bureaucratsArbitration Committee if the accounts must be kept private. - RFA candidates should normally disclose all past significant accounts.
- You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions.
It is my opinion that the five phrases in red connote differing levels of obligation. At one extreme, the first phrase imposes such an obligation that there is no need to ask a question—affirmatively responded without prompting is required. The other phrases imply weaker obligations.
- Is there clarity what we want the policy to say, and we simply need to do some wordsmithing to bring these phrases into concurrence of meaning, or
- Do we need to debate what we want the policy to say?
--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well summarised. The current policy is self-contradictory. The fourth option makes most sense, though should be extended to current as well as former undeclared accounts. Also it is silly and timewasting to expect people to inform Arbcom of former accounts that are now openly declared and redirected to the current account. ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- PS I'd already spotted the bit about informing the crats on the 15th, and as no-one objected to my note then, I've now fixed that anomaly ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- WereSpielChequers, I reverted[5] with a modification. I didn't see the note on the 15th. RFA is the province of the bureaucrats. There is no case for expanding the role of Arb Com (from here) to supervise RFA. The bureaucrats are a competent lot, and their judgment as to whether a multiple account declaration together with an RFA nomination warrants informing arb com I think is a sufficient check. Also, I don't see that the "anomaly" is really an anomaly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Depends on the reason for abandoning the prior account, SmokeyJoe; if there is a privacy element (e.g., real name or username that could easily be linked to a real name), people may well think twice about revealing that information to bureaucrats, who are not cleared for private information. (Caveat: Several 'crats are also functionaries, i.e., checkusers or oversighters, and *are* cleared for private information, but not in their role as a 'crat, so they would have to recuse from other RFA-related actions involving that user.) Risker (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea of treating these as two separate decisions. Can this user run without publicly revealing their past account, and judging from the RFA does the community have consensus to make this user an admin. If we put crats in charge of both decisions then it would put them in an extremely awkward position when having a crat chat re a borderline result. Do you expect them to try and disregard the things they know but the community doesn't, or would you prefer that they move crat chats to a private crat only forum? Also are you proposing that crats identify themselves to the office, or are you saying that its OK to have a policy telling people to disclose private and personal information to people who have not been cleared to receive that? ϢereSpielChequers 07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- WereSpielChequers asks good questions. I am wondering what happens when a user who has made a disclosure, or who has has alternative but compliant accounts detected, makes misleading statements at RFA. What if a privileged user is aware that the community consensus is dependent on a false assumption. What is the role of a checkuser, or a bureaucrat, in such a position. If the privileged user's hands are tied, what is the point of making a disclosure privately. This sounds like a hairy problem for elected arbiters, but are the arbiters expected to follow all RFAs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting point by SmokeyJoe. We could ask for an Arb to give an opinion here, or alternatively add something along the lines of "Any user with secret alt accounts that they have declared to Arbcom, is expected to check with Arbcom before submitting an RFA or RFB". That would give Arbcom the opportunity to check the latest edits on those accounts and advise the potential candidate if there is anything egregious that should be declared. For example, a candidate who declared "I have a retired account which for Privacy reasons I'm not going to disclose other than to Arbcom, but they've said I should say at RFA that I had "one short block for incivility over 6 weeks ago" would be treated very differently by the RFA community than one who had to declare "one short block for incivility over 2 years ago" - though perhaps in the latter case Arbcom would simply treat the block as timeserved providing the candidate didn't make a big thing of having a pristine block record. ϢereSpielChequers 09:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- WereSpielChequers asks good questions. I am wondering what happens when a user who has made a disclosure, or who has has alternative but compliant accounts detected, makes misleading statements at RFA. What if a privileged user is aware that the community consensus is dependent on a false assumption. What is the role of a checkuser, or a bureaucrat, in such a position. If the privileged user's hands are tied, what is the point of making a disclosure privately. This sounds like a hairy problem for elected arbiters, but are the arbiters expected to follow all RFAs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea of treating these as two separate decisions. Can this user run without publicly revealing their past account, and judging from the RFA does the community have consensus to make this user an admin. If we put crats in charge of both decisions then it would put them in an extremely awkward position when having a crat chat re a borderline result. Do you expect them to try and disregard the things they know but the community doesn't, or would you prefer that they move crat chats to a private crat only forum? Also are you proposing that crats identify themselves to the office, or are you saying that its OK to have a policy telling people to disclose private and personal information to people who have not been cleared to receive that? ϢereSpielChequers 07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Depends on the reason for abandoning the prior account, SmokeyJoe; if there is a privacy element (e.g., real name or username that could easily be linked to a real name), people may well think twice about revealing that information to bureaucrats, who are not cleared for private information. (Caveat: Several 'crats are also functionaries, i.e., checkusers or oversighters, and *are* cleared for private information, but not in their role as a 'crat, so they would have to recuse from other RFA-related actions involving that user.) Risker (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- WereSpielChequers, I reverted[5] with a modification. I didn't see the note on the 15th. RFA is the province of the bureaucrats. There is no case for expanding the role of Arb Com (from here) to supervise RFA. The bureaucrats are a competent lot, and their judgment as to whether a multiple account declaration together with an RFA nomination warrants informing arb com I think is a sufficient check. Also, I don't see that the "anomaly" is really an anomaly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- PS I'd already spotted the bit about informing the crats on the 15th, and as no-one objected to my note then, I've now fixed that anomaly ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Largely agree (have no problem) with SPhilbrick, but disagree, as previously, with mandating the informing of Arb Com. The appropriate subgroup to inform is the checkusers. Arbiters are explicitly not agents of the WMF, unlike the checkusers, and Arbiters are not necessarily bound by the privacy policy as are the checkusers. I suspect that this is currently only an academic concern, but as a matter of principle I think this argument is sound. Also, regarding RFA, the bureaucrats must not be left out of the loop regarding a current RFA nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Umm...you're mistaken there, arbitrators are bound by the privacy policy. As well, all current arbitrators are either checkusers or oversighters. The Arbitration Committee maintains a list of users who advise us of alternate accounts, so that if the issue arises in the future, the disclosure can be verified. Risker (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Risker. you've said this to me before, but not backed it up. I have little doubt that any arbiter would say that they abide by the privacy policy. But the privacy policy applies to Wikipmedia Foundation, what it owns and what it is responsible for. "Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Wikipedia executives. They are volunteer users—usually..." reads to me to say that the arbiters are independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. Am I misreading it, or is the text misleading? I also understand (perhaps out of date) that arbiters are not necessarily positively identified to the Foundation. Do arbiters legally commit to abide by the privacy policy? If an arbiter violates that policy and causes me damage, do I have recourse through the Foundation?
- Telling me about current arbiters is not entirely convincing. Don't future arbiters have access to private information supplied previously?
- This is the first I have read of "a list of users who advise us of alternate accounts". What policy/guarantees are associated with this list. Who can access it? What can be done with it? How long is it kept for? Can entries be examined for mistakes and corrected? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- To answer a few of your questions (though clearly not all of them), the question is of access rather than necessarily being a member of Wikimedia staff. Users who have specific access to personally identifiable information specifically includes users who have OTRS/Checkuser/Oversight functions, users elected by project communities to serve as stewards or Arbitrators, Wikimedia Foundation staff (employees, agents, contractors, etc.), and developers and others with high levels of server access. See the relevant part of privacy policy. Any such user who has access to personally identifiable information (covered by privacy policy) should be personally and legally accountable by virtue of access to nonpublic data policy, but access to deleted revisions on a publicly editable project, such as that held by administrators, is not sufficient to require identification. The requirements I mentioned exist unless the Board of Trustees makes a resolution for an exception, though that, I imagine, would be rare given how much more trouble that would cause. There is absolutely no guarantee against unauthorized access, but where such information may have been provided to another user who does not have access or is not permitted access, let alone to the public, one would have recourse - not necessarily limited to the Foundation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but all of that seems to be already documented or reasonably intuitive. I guess what I am really saying is that there should be a clear statement on what happens, and can happen, with information privately disclosed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- When you say "can happen", are you talking about risks, or are you talking about the practical consequences for those who are obligated to maintain privacy? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but all of that seems to be already documented or reasonably intuitive. I guess what I am really saying is that there should be a clear statement on what happens, and can happen, with information privately disclosed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- To answer a few of your questions (though clearly not all of them), the question is of access rather than necessarily being a member of Wikimedia staff. Users who have specific access to personally identifiable information specifically includes users who have OTRS/Checkuser/Oversight functions, users elected by project communities to serve as stewards or Arbitrators, Wikimedia Foundation staff (employees, agents, contractors, etc.), and developers and others with high levels of server access. See the relevant part of privacy policy. Any such user who has access to personally identifiable information (covered by privacy policy) should be personally and legally accountable by virtue of access to nonpublic data policy, but access to deleted revisions on a publicly editable project, such as that held by administrators, is not sufficient to require identification. The requirements I mentioned exist unless the Board of Trustees makes a resolution for an exception, though that, I imagine, would be rare given how much more trouble that would cause. There is absolutely no guarantee against unauthorized access, but where such information may have been provided to another user who does not have access or is not permitted access, let alone to the public, one would have recourse - not necessarily limited to the Foundation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Umm...you're mistaken there, arbitrators are bound by the privacy policy. As well, all current arbitrators are either checkusers or oversighters. The Arbitration Committee maintains a list of users who advise us of alternate accounts, so that if the issue arises in the future, the disclosure can be verified. Risker (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with SPhilbrick, those passages need to be cleaned up and made consistent throughout the policy. In the current version, it runs the whole spectrum from from no requirement to disclose to absolutely mandatory. I think disclosure should be mandatory prior to accepting an RFA. Bureaucrats though do not need to know what old account(s) someone has to make a determination of community consensus. The Arbitration Committee can determine if the disclosed account(s) are material to the RFA and pass that information to everyone involved in the RFA while keeping the actual username private. There is no reason for both groups to know the information, because when you have information that you want to remain private, the more people you tell the better chance it will get out. Just for full disclosure, I made a cleanstart and my old account is registered with the Arbitration Committee. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- IMO we don't really want to follow a single, absolutist rule mindlessly. If you had a series of accounts several years ago, doing a few edits of nothing spectacular before forgetting the password, should you have to announce those unimportant accounts? (What if you can't remember their names?) On the other hand, if you had serious, ongoing problems, and you have deliberately attempted a WP:CLEANSTART, then an announcement of that fact is probably appropriate. I think that a simple statement of fact might be more relevant: Adminship (etc) is a position of trust, and if the community feels you deceived them, e.g., by failing to disclose past accounts, then you're very likely to lose that trust. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets nominated for deletion
Hello, this notification is to alert users that Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets has recently been nominated for deletion by another user. Your input is welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξxplicit 05:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Revert Nuclearwarface's edits
{{editsemiprotected}}
It's inappropriate for admins to enact a flagarently wrong policy and then protect the page. There is NO requirement that suspected socks be blocked before they can be listed. The template itself has a parameter for being blocked and few of the accounts tagged have that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.18.96 (talk • contribs)
Couple of items
This policy wording seems to totally ignore the concept of dynamic IP addresses, and the sharing of an address amongst potentially thousands of people, e.g when an internet provider has a block of IP addresses, and dynamically (temporarily) assigns them amongst their several thousand customer in the area. Wording to the effect of "if you share an IP address you must ......." is absurd in light of this.
Second, due to the above point and others, one can never be really certain of sockpuppetry. One can be "pretty sure", enough to justify blocking etc. But the threat of damaging someones real life based on "pretty sure" (without knowing for sure) is fear mongering threats, and out of line in a policy, and, if actually practiced, I would think would expose Wikipedia to huge lawsuits. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- When I was getting started, I was blocked from opening an account due to a "range block" which said merely "sockpuppet investigation". That block of IP addresses (dynamicaly assigned by the provider) means that WP blocked several thousand people for a sock puppet investigation on one person. When I inquired about this in one of the "answer" sections they just wrote "tell your neighbors to stop vandalizing" which was a ridiculous answer on several levels, including that there was no indication of vandalism, nor even of confirmed sockpuppetry. Plus he wanted me to go confront and accuse several thousand neighbors on the off chance that one of them might be the person being investigated for sockpuppetry. (copied from above) North8000 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional inappropriate use to be noted: misusing pending changes review
Editing an article that is under pending changes protection with one account, then accepting the edit with another.
... seems uncontroversially analagous to Misusing new pages patrol. Any objections? Baileypalblue (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes is an experiment which will end I think in about 10 days. Hopefully it will die after that. Probably not premature to discuss this, but not make policy changes at this moment. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect it will be pushed through come hell or high water, but there's surely no harm in waiting to see how things are finalized, one way or another. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Two people.two accounts?
If there's two people on a computer ,can each person have their own account?--Danny(Monster2821) (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes they can and should have their own account. You both need to be careful though that you don't create the impression of Meat puppetry or Sock Puppetry. If the two of you edit the same articles and support each other in disputes then someone may accuse you of deceptive editing and you both could be blocked. You walk a fine line when you edit from the same computer. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- If these two accounts in such a case get accused of sock puppetry, that can always be a defense, and per WP:AGF, this defense must be believed until it can be proven otherwise. It is a strong possibility that two people sharing a household will share common interests, and may even talk to each other about Wikipedia articles they edit, not in order to be meatpuppets, but just because it is something they like to talk about. They may both edit articles about local geography or be fans of the same sports team out of their own independent interests. If this is the case, they should NOT have the requirement to be open about this, since editors have the right to personal privacy.
Opinions please
"Abuse of multiple accounts can seriously affect what employers, friends, peers and journalists may see when they look up your name or nickname online in the future."
I think the above should be removed because it is cruel to use coercion to get people to not sock. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit. There is no evidence when someone creates sockpuppets. There could be multiple users on an IP address. I think Wikipedia is just paranoid over the fact that a person can use sockpuppets to damage the project. But of course if this project was more controlled and had only specific people who can participate and not random people using it, Wikipedia would be much better in controlling sockpuppetry. Sabena Rani Gupta (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a threat, it's a warning. Taking away the warning won't make the consequences go away, think of it like the warning you get before reformatting your hard drive. There can be serious consequences to sockpuppetry and it would in my view be wrong not to warn people of them. As for combating sockpuppetry by restricting editing, there are various Encyclopaedia sites that have tried to emulate wikipedia but without the open editing, all have failed, to continue improving Wikipedia we need a large userbase. If we throw the bulk of that away Wikipedia will not improve as fast as it has done in the past, will get out of date and would be vulnerable to competition from an open editing rival. ϢereSpielChequers 08:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Coercion is not a threat. It is using force or intimidation to obtain compliance. And that is what this warning in the sockpuppetry policy is doing. Sabena Rani Gupta (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't coercion, no one is using the threat of, or actual, force or intimidation to get people to comply with this policy. This is a notice, warning if you prefer, of the possible consequences of failing to comply with the policy. I am sure nothing is going to happen to most sockpuppets, but it is still the responsible thing to do to inform people of the possible consequences of their actions. ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that it is an implied threat to do something that shouldn't be done. Damaging people's personal lives because they had 2 accounts and broke a Wikipedia rule. It should go. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's beyond our control what the wider world does - there's nothing we can do about it. If you're saying we shouldn't discuss/sanction/block/ban/tag someone who has broken the sockpuppetry rules you'll probably find some opposition, perhaps even from "Sabena Rani Gupta" who thinks everyone should have one unified identity. What other people might do with that identity is something we should warn people about, because there's nothing else we can do about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that it is an implied threat to do something that shouldn't be done. Damaging people's personal lives because they had 2 accounts and broke a Wikipedia rule. It should go. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea not to mention this theoretical possibility in the main policy page, but instead to write an essay about it. Hellno2 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't we mention this possibility in the main policy page? I don't see any hard that it might do to have it on this page. Moving it to some other page will only bury it and reduce the usefulness of the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- What "possibility"? One posting back you were blending widely accepted inside-Wikipedia practices regarding potential sock puppets (discuss/block/ban/tag) with a vague one "sanction" which means who know what. And this is during a discussion about a phrase which implies doing totally different things which could damage people outside of Wikipedia (outing them etc.)
- Finally, there is the relevant overlay that there is no such thing as a confirmed sock puppet (person). At best it can be a 99% sure guess. And, so what are you talking about doing to people based on being a probable sockpuppeter? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)