User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful

I am not a fan of our sockpuppetry policies, or more specifically our application of them.

Using multiple accounts can lead to two problems:


 * 1) Because Wikipedia works by consensus, loading one side of the debate with multiple accounts results in deliberate bias
 * 2) You shouldn't be able to evade a block and carry on as if nothing had happened

Therefore it makes sense that you should block somebody who has similar disruptive traits to a recently blocked doppelganger. Yet I am surprised sometimes at some administrators who think sharing an IP address or having some vague, similar traits to another editor is disruptive in and of it itself. It isn't. It might be a bit odd, or a co-incidence, or simply two guys sharing a laptop or internet connection, but it's not directly worthy of a block if it's not actually disruptive. We told Orangemoody to not let the door hit him on the way out after we booted him off, but was it because of "abusing multiple accounts", or was it really because he was spamming Wikipedia with inappropriate articles and using it as his personal protection racket?

Similarly, there seems to be this belief that any good-faith and obvious improvement to the encyclopedia by a suspected sockpuppet must be reverted or deleted on sight, regardless of its merits. This seems to be back-to-front. Firstly, writing the encyclopedia is one of the five pillars and should be one of the principal parts of the project to focus on, while sockpuppetry isn't. Secondly, if somebody happens to be using the same IP address and user agent as somebody else, but otherwise is not directly being abusive, exactly how is a block, revert or delete preventing harm to the encyclopedia? Indeed, one could jump to a logical conclusion that somebody knowingly reverting good faith improvements is deliberately making the encyclopedia worse, and is a de facto vandal. And the correct response to vandals is to block 'em. Won't happen, though.

Our Sockpuppetry investigations area is a dangerous place to wade into, as if you get too involved at the expense of more moderate areas of the project, such as writing content, the effects of the Stanford prison experiment can kick in and you'll start to think most users are abusive assholes who deserve a block. This is bad. What can we do about editors who find themselves drawn into this situation? Unfortunately, not a lot, other than challenging poor sockpuppetry-based blocks as and when they occur. Hopefully if the community gets more fed up with these sort of sanctions, there'll be less temptation to use them.