Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 4

Circumventing policy
Two cases have come up recently where users under arbcom restrictions - one a topic ban and probation, the other a probation - used sockpuppets to edit in ways they were sanctioned for originally. One has argued he violated no policy in using this sockpuppet, and he seems to be right - no policy explicitly says you may not evade your probation using an alternate account. To avoid further confusion, I propose the #Circumventing policy section, which currently states: Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this.

be changed to:

Users who are banned or blocked, or under any other Arbitration Committee or coummunity sanctions, may not use sock puppets to circumvent this.

Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. How about a slightly different wording:

Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks and bans.
 * Chaz Beckett 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an attempt to reword the circumvention section:

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks and bans. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions. Chaz Beckett 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change based on your latest proposal, but will insert probations in there just for extra clarity. I once thought it didn't need to be explicitly stated; no more am I under that misconception. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Sock puppet
The opening sentence of this article says that a sock-puppet is an additional username. Since additional user names are not banned, an accusation of sock-puppetry implies nothing bad.

Further on in the article I read,and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. This is a very different definition indeed, and implies a breach of the rules. Which is it to be?

Later, under 'handling' the article says "if you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally'. This again assumes the bad meaning for the term, and makes no sense given that sock puppets, as defined in the first line, are just multiple accounts and clearly allowed. It may be that another article is needed here for 'multiple accounts' with this article clearly limited to wrong use of multiple accounts.

My account at user:memestream now bears a flag for all to see which says, this user is a sock-puppet. The flag remains despite extensive discussions in the talk page attempting to clear my name, where everyone, including several admins, has said clearly that I never used two names in a wrong way, such as to edit the same article. I am not guilty as charged, and yet I cannot seem to clear my name as everyone wants to debate whether I should use a second account, rather than just admit that the rules allow it (I use it for very good reasons as specifically permitted by the rules). Please help, and can we clear up the definition here? --Lindosland 12:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems of 'blowing cover'
I was wrongly suspected of using two accounts improperly, and was then notified of the suspicion and asked to respond. However, the notice was given on the 'open' account, one which gives my full name and links to my life history and business interests. As I had not logged in to this account for some time (I keep it for edits to articles specific to my business interest in which I am well known, while using the other account so as not to advertise all my other interests to colleagues) I did not see the message, and both accounts were blocked within less than 24 hours.

The consequence was to 'blow my cover' such that everyone knows of my other account now. This is surely wrong, and I suggest a rule that says notice must be given only on the anonymous account where such exists, in order to protect the annonymity specifically permitted by the rules. The fact that my 'trial' was conducted on my talk page makes everything worse, with reams of accusations laid out for all to see, and no clear 'not guilty' conclusion to counter these and put and end to the matter, even though it is accepted I broke no rules. An added complication is that once my account was blocked indefinitely no link to the reason for blocking remained at the page, which is flagged as a sockpuppet and as indefinitely blocked. This is terrible, because being a sockpuppet, in the sense of 'multiple user' is not an offence in itself (though it now stands incorrectly as the reason for blocking). A link to the 'evidence' remains, but this has been shown to be mistaken! --Lindosland 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags and proof
What sort of proof would one use for the tag, beyond the diff links that one should use when tagging suspects? (I'm not talking about checkuser results, which has its own tag.) The only other evidence I can think of might be an obvious mistake of the user blowing his own cover, or an outright confession. On the other hand, if diff links are sufficient to prove a sockpuppet, then I don't see the need for the suspected tags (i.e.,  ) at all, as even those should be accompanied by that type of evidence. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
I just found this page and I have to say I love the picture. So many of these user policy pages are dull, but it is nice to have something to lighten this one up with. 69.130.169.99 18:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As of 2007-10-06T10:03:59 these images have been removed . I share your oppinion (and I'm glad you think it's nice to have them) but I won't restore the images by myself since I've authored the edit including one of them, which was reverted later. Rjgodoy (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Old inactive accounts
I previously had an old account under a different name, but lately I changed it to this account as part of a name change that is not just wikipedia-related. The old account is now no longer active and will never be again. What I want to know is that will my new account be considered a sock puppet or not? Toad of Steel 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You could just leave that account completely. As long as you're not using it to !vote with your main account, it's just an inactive account, not a sockpuppet.  Useight 06:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A sockpuppet is literally just an alternate account. So the Toad of Steel account is a sockpuppet, since it is a second account of someone who previously created an account. There is nothing wrong with that - his switch, based on his description, was perfectly acceptable. A secondary account does not have to be abusive to be a sockpuppet; a secondary account is a sockpuppet. They are synonymous. So to answer our ToS, yes, his new account is a sock, but it is not being used abusively, so he is in the clear. Picaroon (t) 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, that's a pretty broad definition of a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is usually considered to be a secondary account, not merely a new account. If a user was alternating between two accounts (even for legitimate purposes), I'd consider the secondary account to be a sockpuppet. However, if the user abandoned the old account and created a new one, I'd argue that it isn't a secondary account. As an analogy, consider the difference between having a secondary job and getting a new job. In the latter, ties with the previous job would be severed, while in the former they wouldn't. Sicne ToS has stated he won't be using his old account any longer, I wouldn't consider his new account to be a sock. Chaz Beckett 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with ChazBeckett. James.Denholm (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding scrutiny
This section no longer has the support of the community, and does not reflect actual practice. See User:Privatemusings, User:Semiprivatemusings, User:MOASPN, and others. The section should be removed, with maybe a few bits of its content integrated elsewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted your deletion because I felt we should discuss this first. Thanks for coming here.  I think the section should remain, but perhaps it needs to be modified to reflect current practice. It seems like common sense that a user who does something wrong and gets a few warnings, and then switches to a new account where they get a few more warnings, and then another account, and so on, is just gaming the system.  Why should we permit that sort of sockpuppetry? - Jehochman  Talk 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) It appears that this section was added a little over a year ago by SlimVirgin with little discussion, possibly due to concerns expressed by JimboW (see this version from July 30, 2006 with quote from JW, but no section titled 'avoiding public scrutiny'. From that version, over the next 2 days, the policy was changed by SV diff). As for my own thoughts, I'm not sure this section really fits in well as long as there is a legitimate use for puppets, because anytime a SP is created/used, scrutiny (by default) is avoided for the editor involved. R. Baley 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the language can be sharpened to say to identify "avoiding scrutiny while you do naughty things" as the problem. I agree that avoiding identification of the owner is a legitimate use of a non-disruptive sockpuppet. But if the sock is used for gaming the rules, that's another matter. - Jehochman  Talk 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The naughty things are already covered by 3rr, npa, etc. Gaming the system is pretty well covered elsewhere too, I think. Currently using socks like User:Privatemusings seems to be accepted. Maybe the section should be integrated into 'allowed uses', with modified wording that is consistent with current practice. Tom Harrison Talk 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some additional disruptive things that people do with sockpuppets that aren't covered specifically. We need to be careful to leave this open ended.  Pretty much, any use of sockpuppets designed to frustrate the project should be disallowed.  For example, if a user creates a bogus article and it gets deleted, if he abandons the account and re-creates the article a few months later, something is wrong with that.  He changed identity to avoid being linked.   Essentially, if things done with multiple accounts would be OK if done by a single account, that's an allowed use.  If things done by multiple accounts would be a problem for a single account, that's a disruptive sockpuppet. - Jehochman  Talk 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, yeah I had just arrived at this talk page to query about much the same things. The "Keeping heated issues in one small area" and "segregation and security" get-out-clauses seem to be to be quite easy to mis-use ... basically so that an editor can keep seperate accounts for edit-warring and doing naughty things, without tarnishing the reputation of their main account. Obviously, if any given account does "naughty things", the account will be punished sooner or later - but sockpuppetry seems to provide a way of getting the proverbial nine lives...--feline1 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that subsequent events have not borne out Tom Harrison's original assertion justifying the removal of this section. I assert that there is still a consensus that sock puppets are improper when used when to avoid scrutiny, and the blocks of Privatemusings and MOASPN are indications of that. We should restore the original language, and perhaops review the other loopholes to make sure that socks are not used to foment disruption.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hello. If someone creates a sockpuppet that is not under "legit uses", but is not being used for a bad purpose (such as vandalism, 3RR evasion), is that OK? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet is either in violation of this policy or it's not. If it's not, then use of it is okay. The #Legitimate uses of multiple accounts section is not exhaustive. Picaroon (t) 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the test should be, if the editing by multiple accounts were conducted by a single account, would that be "bad" editing? If the editing is bad, sockpuppetry is a  bad faith attempt by the user to escape detection.  - Jehochman  Talk 16:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Compare two user's edit times?
Do you know if there is any tool to compare the times that a wikipedian has been editing? similar to this: User:MONGO/Ban_evasion Thanks. Travb (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Joke accounts
Do we need this clause?? I'm not sure if it is a good idea or not. What exactly is the definition of a joke account?? That's something we need to discuss. As it is, I'm not even sure if it is a legitimate use of an alternate account. Comments would be welcomed. --Solumeiras talk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was about to ask about this, and tried to limit the damage by adding a little bit of a disclaimer to this policy. For the record, I'm not a giant big fan of this idea, and people have gotten frowns on using joke accounts. Generally, the idea has been "as long as it doesn't do damage, you can do whatever the heck you want", but one could argue joke accounts use excessive resources, even when used very sparingly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

uhhh
This is a second account, but I have completey ditched the old account. I have my reasons... Mainly I keep forgetting the userid of the old one.

I might just go and blow the old one up right now.

Hope thats alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vistro (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are not planning on using the old one anymore I don't think that this case would be called "Sock puppetry". VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest minor wording change
I suggest changing the wording of the sentence 'Ensure that by doing so it is not for "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors."' to 'Ensure that you are not doing so to "Avoid scrutiny from other editors."' Uness you can't change the quote. But I still think the way it's worded now is awkward. 4.21.209.231 07:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need to quote. It's just a reference to another part of the policy. Your suggestion has the same meaning with much better grammar. I'll make the change, minus the quotation marks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Query
I am currently involved in a massive arbitration case that involves some of my uses of sockpuppets. Briefly, I used sockpuppets for a time to thwart people who were making IRL threats on my job unless I stopped editing Wikipedia under certain accounts. I was informed by a sympathetic admin that sockpuppets were allowed in cases such as this and so I started some sockpuppet accounts. Now it is being claimed that since I continued editing the same articles and subjects through those accounts that I was technically in breach of this policy page. I'm confused, so I'm asking for clarification:


 * What is a person to do if they are threatened IRL with problems and the easiest solution is to create a sockpuppet while leaving their main account dormant? Should such users be penalized for doing so? Should such users simply stop editing Wikipedia for that time? Why should we permit real life harassment to stop editors from editing Wikipedia?

Please respond.

ScienceApologist 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly let me say robustly and unambiguously that am totally opposed to people being harrassed IRL ("in real life") (or anywhere else, for that matter) and think it's quite outrageous that ScienceApologist should have been receiving threats on his job (I trust your employers gave these short shrift). Regarding that phrase "in real life" though - I would say that for some people, spending a tangible amount of time contributing to wikipedia is a part of their "real lives"... And ScienceApologist, I can't help but note that in this case, your attempt follow the "easiest solution" and edit using different sockpuppets failed, almost entirely due to the fact that your editing style was so easily recognisable - you didn't give yourself the anonymity you craved. Perhaps a change to a less confrontational editing style might have been a better solution in your particular case?--feline1 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, since I was working at a public institution, anyone had the right to file a complaint against me. Fortunately, now I'm no longer working there. The thing is, feline, the harassment stopped as soon as I abandoned the ScienceApologist and Mainstream Astronomy accounts. ScienceApologist 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sympathetic to your concerns about real-life harassment. We need to have zero-tolerance for such tomfoolery. However, I am unsympathetic to your use of sockpuppets in this case. You used them to continue the same patterns as your primary account and, in at least one case, you have used them to stack discussion in your favor. (This is directly contrary to the section you have pointed to in your defense. WP:Sockpuppets: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." [emphasis added]) I am personally acquainted with a few Wikipedians who exercised their right to vanish when faced with threats and/or real-life harassment. They created new accounts and took care to avoid presenting the new account in a way that would be correlated with their old identity. I would have recommended the same course of action. However, editors under sanction and those with a history of conduct issues often do not have the casual right*, due to concerns regarding ban/sanction evasion and obfuscation of a problematic history. Vassyana 12:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) * That is the right to close an account and open a new one at will without strings attached.


 * I think existing policy is more than sufficient. You can offer evidence in your own defense at arbitration.  Checkuser is not a fishing expedition, and it's only the misuse of socks which is sanctioned at WP.  Arbitration provides the neutral jury for you and others in dispute with you to fully air it out with, and it shouldn't present any obstacles at this point since the socks were banned and arbitration initiated only after you felt safe enough to resume editing with this user name. Put everything out in evidence before the arb committee and let the RFAR run its course.  Professor marginalia 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana's accusations
This was supposed to be a general discussion, but I would like to respond to some of the more egregious accusations made by Vassyana:


 * However, I am unsympathetic to your use of sockpuppets in this case. You used them to continue the same patterns as your primary account and, in at least one case, you have used them to stack discussion in your favor.

This is plainly not the case. The only place where it might be said that I was "stacking a discussion" I discuss here. If you have something to say about it, please do so there.

Otherwise, I find your disagreement perplexing. Where on this page does it state that one needs to change the patterns of the account in order to have a legitimate sockpuppet?


 * (This is directly contrary to the section you have pointed to in your defense. [WP:Sockpuppets#Keeping heated issues in one small_area]]: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." [emphasis added])

But I wasn't using any other accounts to edit the same subject. I couldn't. The SA account had to be abandoned in order to prevent the group from filing a complaint. So I don't understand what you are insinuating. Are you trying to say that I used the SA account at the same time? Where is your evidence?


 * However, editors under sanction and those with a history of conduct issues often do not have the casual right*, due to concerns regarding ban/sanction evasion and obfuscation of a problematic history.

So if an editor is cautioned or counseled by arbcomm, they don't have the right? I was not under a ban. As for a "problematic history", this is obviously something that is left to the eye of the beholder. Are you seriously proposing that someone who is perceived as problematic doesn't have the right to edit at Wikipedia if someone threatens them IRL?

ScienceApologist 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded on SA's talk page to avoid filling up a policy discussion page with a side discussion. Vassyana 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded on Vassyana's talk page as well. ScienceApologist 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
In the last year or so, there has been an increase in the use of sockpuppetry to stir up controversy. This is happening in ArbCom cases, discussions on AN/I, and on controversial talk pages.

I'd therefore like to rewrite parts of the policy to more narrowly define the legitimate use of alternative accounts. In particular, I think the policy should make clear that alternate accounts may be used in article space (for example, to edit a subject you don't want to be associated with because it might identify you or expose you to harassment), so long as the account isn't being used solely to stir up controversy. But outside article space, sockpuppetry is prohibited. That is, alternate accounts shouldn't be used to take part in ArbCom cases, AN/I, AfDs, RfAs, etc. The reasoning is that people have a right to know, during a controversial discussion, whether they're talking to an established Wikipedian.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There might need to be certain limited exceptions to this prohibition. I would suggest that seeking such an exception by writing to some body (perhaps arbcom) that holds community trust to explain the situation and request a waiver ought to be allowed for, but otherwise I think your proposal has a great deal of merit. I note that I have sockpuppets and that all of them (except one that I forgot the password to and then promptly forgot the name of as well) are fully disclosed. The one I use when I am having problems posting from my regular account even has my userid embedded in the signature. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea about seeking an exemption. Anyone wanting to set up an alternate account to engage in policy discussion, AN/I, or start an RfAr, for example, would have to notify the ArbCom in advance and be granted a waiver. But I'd suggest that the waiver be limited to the issue they requested it for, rather than being carte blanche to get involved in all kinds of project space issues. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. At the very most, seek an additional waiver if the remit needs expanding. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with tightening - I've always thought some of teh arguments for their use tenuous at best. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is an "established Wikipedian?" Cla68 07:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably, someone with enough of a history here to glean something from their edit history. Wikidemo (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first person here to disagree. Allowing editing only in article space would make it so that sock puppets would be forced to edit without collaborating with other editors. Considering that the areas that could expose editors to harassment are also usually also the most contentious, having a policy that directly restricts discussion would be very unfortunate and counterproductive. Also, what happens if a sockpuppet is named as a party to an ArbCom case? What happens if an article the sockpuppet is involved with is put up on AfD? What about if the policy under discussion would only be of interest to the sockpuppet? Or if an incident would only be known to the sockpuppet? In many of these cases, suddenly switching to the main account would be an obvious revelation of identity. In many cases, "alternate account" vs. "main account" is ambiguous, so enforcement of this could be somewhat questionable and subjective, and such restrictions, as enforcement would require discovery, would discourage users from declaring sockpuppets and encourage them to engage in sockpuppetry covertly. The restrictions don't AGF either, since there appears to be the assumption that sockpuppets will be used to stir up controversy.
 * A better idea might be to simply add "stirring up controversy" as an abusive use of sockpuppetry. This would allow preventative measures to be taken against sockpuppets who are problematic, while not overly restricting those who aren't causing problems. Additional restrictions might also be in order, such as widening "using multiple accounts in one discussion" to "using multiple accounts in the same area", so as to prevent users from using different accounts for different discussions in the same areas. These would, of course, be subjective, but I think that in most cases the difference between abusive and legitimate sockpuppets is rather clear.
 * However, having exemptions, as a sort of "registered sockpuppetry" with ArbCom would be quite useful, and in some cases would be better for the sockpuppet users as well. For example, there are frequent accusations made against me, claiming that I'm one of a variety of different editors. Since accused sockpuppet accounts often aren't notified, I've had checkusers run against me, been brought into RfAs, and had SUSPSOCK pages made concerning me without even being told. It would be very nice to allow an ArbCom member to authoritatively deny these accusations without needing me to send emails every time, after being notified of the accusations by random users. Of course, concerns about data security would have to be addressed. Issue-based waivers could prove problematic as well, since many users of sockpuppets use them exclusively in certain areas. It wouldn't just be a case of approval for one policy, AN/I or RfAr incident; there would be sockpuppets who would have to continually ask for new waivers. Besides, don't we want to discourage setting up alternate accounts to deal with specific issues, rather than setting up alternate accounts to work in certain areas? --Philosophus T 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in most cases these exemptions will be common sense. If policy allows an alternate account for a certain reason, editing in talk space etc. connected to that is of course OK.


 * In general, use of alternate accounts should be explicitly discouraged. Use of an alternate account to argue or get into controversy with is IMO a misreading of even the current version of this policy.  The meaning meant by permitting second accounts to edit controversial areas is that these controversial areas are controversial CONTENT areas, not e.g. site debates, etc.


 * This policy should also state that those under arbcom sanction may only use another account after informing the arbcom, and that those engaging in arbitration proceedings, as either a party or giving evidence, may only use an account created for the purpose with the permission of the arbcom.


 * This policy does not and should not permit creating alternate accounts for stirring up trouble without it sticking. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By contentious, I meant content areas, but I should have clarified that. Creating a separate account just for getting into arguments over site issues would be abusive, but under the current version, it isn't as explicitly prohibited as it could be. As for accounts created for ArbCom, I think we're talking about two different issues. I was referring to accounts that are parties to RfAs and also happen to be legitimate sockpuppets; for example, I've been a party to a few RfAs (but not sanctioned) because of my editing of pseudoscience article. It seems to me that SlimVirgin's proposal would have forbidden me from giving any evidence. On the other hand, creating an account just for engaging in arbitration would seem generally abusive. --Philosophus T 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Matthew (obviously). Since "less is more" in Wikipedia policies, we should, I think, simply say that using an alternate account for an arbitration case may be permitted in some case, please talk privately with the arbitrators. It should not happen often often enough to make it worth spending hours hashing out a form of words. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the current policy is way too encouraging to the prospective sockpuppeteer. Under the principles espoused in the essay Don't stuff beans up your nose, we shouldn't be listing all the ways in which sockpuppets should not be used or indeed all the ways you can sock and still stay within the letter of the law. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. One situation where I would actually encourage a second account is work/home use. Suppose someone works in the public affairs department for a university and maintaining a web presence is part of that person's job. So he or she creates an account for work, declares the conflict of interest on that account's user page, and - in accordance with recommendations I've given - posts suggested edits to the article's talk page, occasionally also posting to noticeboards to request page protection when a spate of vandalism occurs, or requests dispute resolution if a problem occurs. So this person wants to get more familiar with Wikipedia and opens a second account (also declared) for recreational editing from home. Now is that second account forbidden from ever commenting on a talk page, or filing a WP:3RR report? Perhaps we should include a specific exception for declared work/home accounts when the work account entails specific job responsibilities. Durova Charge! 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the person would need to decide which was his main account. The main account could post wherever it wanted. The secondary account would be confined to making article edits and posting on the article talk page for the purpose of collaboration.


 * I don't think we can say that home/work is an exception to the rule, but not allow other exceptions too. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Home/work, no - too easy to game - but personal/condition of employment. When fully declared, the job account is confirmable.  Durova Charge! 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If we allow registered exceptions, as per the earlier suggestion, this would seem to be a perfect case for it. But on the whole, the restriction doesn't make sense. If a sockpuppet creates a correct 3RR report, and doesn't cause any problem or create the report in an ethically questionable way, are you suggesting that we ban the sockpuppet and remove the report? Furthermore, isn't this just going to encourage home/work users to hide their sockpuppetry? Currently, there is nothing, besides the harassment that results, discouraging such a user from disclosing their account ties. If these restrictions are in place, why would an editor restrict their own editing by disclosing something that would be almost impossible to discover, and isn't necessarily bad for Wikipedia? --Philosophus T 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, this is an interesting scenario. However, I don't see that a sock can legitimately edit a given article or within some dispute nexus under different names during his or her "off hours" than during work hours.  It's something like SEC rules about insider trading.  If WP requires disclosure during work hours of a given editor, it deserves disclosure about their interactions during their off hours as well.  It's not the timing, but relationship to the subject, that's of concern. Professor marginalia 06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Durova is talking about the two accounts being used to edit the same articles or even the same areas. Under SlimVirgin's proposed restrictions, the accounts would be heavily restricted even if the edits were in entirely different areas and the two accounts never came near each other. --Philosophus T 07:36, 7

November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see now this might be an argument of over-restriction as well.  I have never seen a case where objections have been raised against a sock accept in those cases where various usernames have been used to make antagonistic or otherwise controversial edits within a delimited domain.  In the cases I've seen, it's the sock that argues legalistic loopholes rather than the community.  Professor marginalia 07:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely. My problem with this proposal is that in order to prevent a certain kind of borderline abusive sockpuppetry, it will criminalize a whole class of legitimate sockpuppets who have done nothing wrong and are making good contributions, simply because of a technical point of policy. --Philosophus T 08:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, most socks are not creating valid 3RR reports, they are engaging in controversial behaviour while leaving the main account clean. The presumption of one editor, one account seems to have been reversed at some point, to the extent that people think they have a perfect right, supported by this policy, to maintain a separate account for their most controversial edits.  I don't think that's what we had in mind when it was written.  Look at the examples: in most of them the link is explicit, the editor is well-respected and the purpose is clearly and narrowly defined.  Now look at the recent examples: User:Privatemusings, for example, which started commenting on an arbcom case but is now active on controversial biographies.  Apparently this user says they will now use only this account; the problem is, that leaves two previous accounts, both with a chequered history, behind.  Persistently registering new accounts and leaving controversy behind is a way of evading scrutiny and correction of problematic behaviour, and I find it very disquieting, especially given what's going on in the Alkivar arbitration. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. I am shocked to see the misrepresentation of this policy by those that are using and discarding user accounts for the only purpose to "clean their records". An editor's history is all we have to assess the good faith and overall intentions of an editor. "We are our edits" to make it straight and simple (see also WP:AKASHA). I have seen editors about to be nominated for adminship, that "dropped" their accounts after a flurry of blocks for 3RR and disruption knowing that their adminship will fail because of their behavior., only to come back later on with a new account with the purpose of not having that checkered past show up in their RFAs. Not surprising at all, if you ask me: Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that in the least relevant? That is precisely what is considered inappropriate in GHBH as currently written, so why should it figure in any discussion of a rewrite? Relata refero 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Random break 1
(indent reset) The proposal, as presented, would be excessively restrictive and would ban some present legitimate uses for multiple accounts. I'm not going to name my other account for reasons that will rapidly become obvious. Quite simply, one is fairly close to my day-to-day real world identity, edits in a particular range of subjects and is not known to be transgendered. The other (this one) is my transgender account, which edits predominantly in LGBT and related areas. The accounts each have 1,000+ edits. The changes, as proposed, would mean that I would effectively have to either quit this account and cease my work in LGBT subjects in spite have never having done anything wrong or disruptive, or knowingly outright disobey the new rule and risk being banned. As long as the two accounts do not take part in the same ArbCom cases, AfDs AN/I topics, etc, I don't believe that there is a legitimate reason to ban this type of use of multiple accounts. --AliceJMarkham 08:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alice, how would this proposal affect your current situation? You could still edit with the account that might expose your real ID, plus the transgender account, so long as you stuck to edits in article space (including talk). But if you wanted to take part in project space with the second account, you'd have to tell ArbCom about the two accounts. Would you see that as a problem, and if so, can you say why? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally have no real problem notifying ArbCom provided that the notification does not become public knowledge, but I have a feeling that a few others might have a problem with having to do that. I do believe, however, that the suggestion of a limited waiver for involvement in administrative discussions would be the exact opposite of what I would be looking for. If it was simply a matter of "notify ArbCom and continue exactly as before", I'd be fine with that. I know the boundaries defined by the current rules and I stay well within them for my own privacy as well as because I choose to abide by the rules. I do agree that the good hand/bad hand and clean hand/dirty hand issues need to be addressed by tightening the rules, but I'm concerned that an overly strict revision of the rules may well do more harm than good. There's something of a parallel in the saying If guns are banned, only the criminals will still have guns. --AliceJMarkham 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone involved in this discussion who would object to getting some kind of waiver from the ArbCom for an alternate account, and if so, can you say why? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that I, for one, would not feel confident or secure in disclosing personal details — especially those of such a sensitive nature as gender identity — to ArbCom, particularly considering some of the other subscribers with access to their mailing list. The risk of this information falling into vindictive hands is too much of a possibility. -- krimpet ⟲  05:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in a very similar situation. I have one account with a name that reveals my identity, where my editing involves mostly scientific topics in the fields I research, another account, which I use for editing about hobbies I'd rather not be known to be overly interested in in real life, and this account, which I use for editing pseudoscience articles and trying to assist with NPOV edit disputes. I too would have to stop editing if this rule were enacted without exemptions. I will admit that sockpuppetry is a large problem, and there are cases now where they are being used in ways that seem to sit on the fence between abuse and legitimacy (I can't tell with Privatemusings, because of the inability to see all the details of the case). Unfortunately, I think that these restrictions are being considered with Privatemusings' sort of behavior in mind, and the unintended consequences aren't necessarily being seen by the proposers, so your example is quite helpful. The ArbCom-based exemption amendment, of course, is an option. I would be willing to register myself with them, though the consequences of being discovered in your case would seem to be worse. But say, as a hypothetical scenario, we had a situation with an editor using a sockpuppet to edit articles about cults with Fair-Game-like doctrines? Would that sort of editor feel safe revealing their identity to arbitrators (I assume they would have to use a proxy to avoid discovery upon subpoena), especially when doing so could cause problems for the ArbCom?   --Philosophus T 08:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interest of making an over-simplistic proposal: why not say that in the normal case, you should NEVER, EVER edit one page with 2 accounts? That would take care of most problems with the crowd-of-socks, and would not restrict most cases of "I need a split personality". --Alvestrand 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Basic theory might be okay, but in practice, there are legitimate reasons for both to end up editing the same page. Examples include AN/I, where both accounts might need to go on separate occasions. In the case of WP: pages, it needs to be that they never participate in the same sections/discussions.
 * There might also conceivably be situations where one account ceases to edit an article and the other later starts editing it, such as for phasing out one account. In this case, perhaps a minimum moratorium period needs to be defined between last edit by one and first edit by the other. --AliceJMarkham 09:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ECx2) I agree completely. Legitimate sockpuppet/single-purpose accounts have been long tolerated for segregating one's contributions in areas of interest, especially if one fears facing stigma if their main account becomes associated with these topics, but still wants to contribute constructively to them, LGBT topics being a prime example. Arbitrary restrictions, such as not allowing them to participate in talk page discussions or processes, would be very harmful, as it would cripple them from being able to work with their fellow editors productively. As long as they clearly segregate the sockpuppet's areas of involvement from their main account's, and never in any way, shape, or form try to use the accounts to influence any area or discussion as if two separate users, there is no reason to bar people from contributing constructively to segregated areas with multiple accounts.
 * One unfortunate straw-man that I think is being presented here is the confusion of controversial topics with controversial behavior. Using a sockpuppet to edit war, or disrupt processes, or behave in any way without the decorum that one would use with one's primary account is unacceptable - this behavior has already long been prohibited as "good hand/bad hand" behavior. Privatemusings and MOASPN, the two most prominent contentious cases recently, both fell under this category - both edited areas they were previously involved in, and used the sockpuppet account for tendentious, controversial behavior. Both were caught doing so under out current policies. Rewriting policies and creeping featurism isn't the answer here - enforcing our current policies, with a pinch of common sense, is the proper solution. -- krimpet ⟲  08:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've rather missed the point that although Privatemusings was caught out, a combination of Wikilawyering and (if Wikipedia Review is not being as blatantly dishonest as usual) deliberate manipulation of good-faith editors led to that behaviour being effectively endorsed. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing controversial articles (pedophilia and pornography, for example) to preserve the reputation of the main account is acceptable. Engaging in controversial behavior to preserve the reputation of the main account should be prohibited.  Specifying article/talk/policy page rules seems like excessive instruction creep.  (For example, we don't want to create a work/home rule that would permit an editor to engage in work-oriented spamming or soapboxing while editing noncontroversial topics at home.)  Focus on behavior.  That should be enough. Thatcher131 12:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We've had a big problem with banned pro-pedophile editors using sock puppets to edit. If we need to use examples let's not use that one. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why in the case of editors like Privatemusings trying to exploit the policies to disrupt, we should just use common sense. If an alternate account actually has to aggressively argue whether their use of multiple accounts is legitimate or not, nine times out of ten they probably aren't. -- krimpet ⟲  18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that would depend on whom they're arguing with. Frankly, whenever I hear the claim "he's defending himself, he must be guilty", I tend to be unconvinced. May I state my wholeheared agreement with your longish statement above, however, especially "One unfortunate straw-man that I think is being presented here is the confusion of controversial topics with controversial behavior." Relata refero 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on "Avoiding scrutiny" needs to be expanded. Some editors with an history of disruption, change usernames with the purpose to obfuscate their previous history of disruption ... only to engage again in the same type of disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Other users have been found to raise hell in one account, while pursuing normal editing with another account. That should not be only discouraged, but prohibited as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then discourage it by stamping down on people who raise hell, regardless of whether thats a main account or an alternate account! Shutting down alternate accounts is a particularly confused way of reducing the amount of hell-raising happening, isnt it? All that will happen is that the junkyard that is Israel-Palestine or Armenia-Azerbaijan or pseudoscience will just be abandoned to those who are able to handle a high degree of hell-raising, and those who otherwise might have made an effort will make even less of an effort than before. This is patently obvious. Relata refero 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is obvious to me is that the only currency we have in Wikipedia, is an editor's credibility as reflected by their editing history, their comments, their block logs, AfD !votes, etc. Take that away by leaving loopholes in the use of multiple accounts to obfuscate and mislead, is not a good idea, is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only currency we should have on wikipedia is the ability to appreciate a good argument and a civil attempt to compromise. Frankly, the fact that an account has in the past made fifteen thousand edits doesn't always mean that its fifteen thousand and one-th contains a good argument; and I find it vaguely absurd that you should think that the "only currency" on the encyclopaedia anyone, even IPs, can edit, is their editing history etc. Relata refero 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have misread what I said, or I may have expressed myself not clear enough. My argument was related to the fact that the only currency we have to assess an editor, is their contributions and we do that by means of editing histories. That is what is called our "public indentity" that gets forged as we edit and participate in this project. What else do you have to assess motive, commitment, quality, attention to detail, civility, etc., which are all important in this project? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only place we need to assess these things is in an RfA, where as I have said, I agree that past accounts should be disclosed. Other than that, we should not need to assess these things: we have a policy that does it for us. Relata refero 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In RfAs, WP:ANI postings, ArbCom cases and all other situations in which user conduct is important. Agree that in article namespace it may not be needed, unless recurring disruption becomes a problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules that work for a small unimportant wiki, but for a top 10 web site are inherently unmanageable. For example, we allow anons to edit. But we pretend to block certain persons. To that end, we block edits from people who act like a blocked person - a sock puppet or a meat puppet. So that means we block points of view when that point of view is established as characteristic of a blocked person. That presents NPOV problems. Fred has suggested maybe that means we must end editing by people who do not identify their real identity to the foundation. But he throws out lots of ideas just as ideas. I suggest that this is no easy or quickly fixable thing. I suggest that the best we can do is "muddle through". The English language Wikipedia is like nothing ever created before. We must be ready to evolve day by day. We must be careful not to destroy what makes it work. WAS 4.250 08:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I added something about the use of alternate accounts to edit userspace - I have one, and openly declare this on my userpage - is there anything really wrong with having an alternate account that only edits your userspace (as on RFA/RFB's people tend to put others down for high userspace counts). The policy does need a re-write, but it will take consensus not voting to ensure this is done. I agree, it is time for a rewrite. --Solumeiras talk 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative solution: strengthen the good hand/bad hand provision
Perhaps a more narrowly targeted solution to this problem of gaming the sockpuppet policy is to strengthen the good hand/bad hand provision. The recent Alkivar arbitration case demonstrated that Burntsauce was an account specifically created for the purpose of furthering the agenda of a sitebanned vandal. I've been tracking other accounts like that - they're easy for a seasoned wikisleuth to spot. What we're dealing with is basically a small hub of destructive people, most of whom have already been sitebanned, who share strategies and coordinate as a team to disrupt the project. I have a few specific ideas that would strengthen our response to that. Durova Charge! 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It should not be necessary to make a conclusive identification of the sockmaster account, if an account under investigation is obviously a sockpuppet.
 * X number of wikignome edits do not constitute a license to behave disruptively, if an account is obviously a sockpuppet and consistently disruptive in particular areas.
 * In order to avoid educating sockpuppeteers about how get better at disrupting the site, evidence regarding an indefinite block for disruptive sockpuppetry may be reviewed privately by the Arbitration Committee or the WikiMedia Foundation.


 * (edit conflict) Sounds good ... just add the provision that it is important that there be no suspicion among uninvolved trusted members of the community that socks are being identified and blocked/banned as part of a conscious or unconscious attempt to unbalance a proper NPOV presentation of information on Wikipedia's articles. That people doing the blocking believe one thing and people being blocked believe another is not evidence of bad blocking; but uninvolved trusted people looking at the resulting articles and saying we might have a POV issue is cause for backing off and rethinking what is going on. I've seen many cases where POV blocking has been accused and in almost every case, when I looked at the articles involved, I found them to be well within our NPOV standards.  WAS 4.250 18:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My worry here is that this can be used to silence viewpoints that are valid but not mainstream. Clearly identifying people who are in charge of the meat/sock account helps show us plebes the bigger picture. Presenting the evidence, despite spilling the beans shows us why that person is bad. The more and more you appear to be running around in backrooms with secret evidence and getting people being blocked with little explanation or evidence is very troublesome indeed and will drive positively contributing users away for fear that they may be next. The fact your jobs gets a little harder should not be of concern. See User:Melsaran for a perfect example.  spryde |  talk  17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment, I believe the rules should be applied fairly and evenly. If you are causing harm to the project, no matter how many FAs you have, no matter how many trolls you have vanquished, you should be dealt with. This goes for new users and seasoned alike.  spryde |  talk  17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, Spryde? Would those valid but not mainstream viewpoints be represented by this Wannabe Kate's tool report?  I find it rather interesting that an account which began its life on May 2006 with this perfectly formatted edit, then made only six more edits until August 2007 and whose most frequently edited page at Wikipedia is WP:ANI (96 edits) arrives so promptly to oppose a needed improvement in the sockpuppetry policy.  Pray tell, how did you develop such a particular interest in Wikipedia namespace and become so adept in it with only - essentially - three months on the project?  I know a sleeper sock when I see one.  Durova Charge! 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to information reviewed privately, I withdraw the above statement. Durova Charge! 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate it. Thank you.  spryde |  talk  20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the strikeout doesn't change the fact that this is precisely the kind of rush to judgment that is beginning to irritate me. A well-informed IP or account is assumed to be a "sock", rather than someone who has edited primarily with an IP, or has chosen to leave behind a particular account for quite non-disruptive reasons. JzG did it with me on AN/I last week, and Durova's done it here. Unless people stop making this assumption and basing things on what can actually be seen and what is said, in the manner that WP is supposed to operate, we will stop writing an encyclopaedia and become a social networking site.
 * Oh, and what happens as WP grows older? People who were fifteen-year old vandals when they and WP started out, are they expected to keep to the same account? We are going to get a lot of new accounts that appear remarkably well-informed and well-behaved as time goes on, for perfectly legitimate reasons. Relata refero 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS is a perfect example what I am talking about. You are seeing things you want to see.
 * 1. Who am I a sock of? I really would love to know who I match up to.
 * 2. Could I have possibly been editing anonymously and learning the ropes before joining? I can provide IP addresses :)
 * 3. Could I have been prompted to join as I started to see things that trouble me and figured "Hey, I might get more respect as named account?
 * Durova, I respect you and the work done here at WP. My sincere belief is you need to take a step back and stop trying to see things that are not there. I am not a sock of anyone. I am here to create a project. I am also here to provide comment on things I see could lead to even worse things down the road. By accusing me you have weakened your position as I am a sock of nobody.  spryde |  talk  18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do provide those IP addresses. My e-mail is enabled and I'll gladly strikethrough if you convince me this conclusion was in error.  Durova Charge! 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Email sent. I sincerely wish to improve Wikipedia while at the same time ensuring that I nor any other innocent person gets caught up in the middle of a vandalism war between one side and the other. I am not the enemy and I am certainly not a sleeper sock that you have accused me of being. Your accusation pretty much floored me but sadly, I knew eventually it would come because I am advocating a somewhat minority viewpoin compared to the other people here. I wish to see everyone given a fair shake at editing the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  spryde |  talk  18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the solution to confirming the conclusions based on secret evidence lies in uninvolved people looking at actual article edits (as indicated above). The proof of the pudding lies in the eating of it and the point of Wikipedia is the articles; so behavior as reflected in article contents is the ultimate verification of the nature of the behavior. People can play all the games they want, but in the end the articles can always be compared to reliable published sources to identify where wikipedia differs from them and thus identify a POV someone is pushing. WAS 4.250 18:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Durova's proposed changes. We already call a quacking things on the water with feathers a duck. Policy should reflect accepted practice, and this is pretty much what we already do. 1 != 2  18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is a logical and reasonable change that reflects current standards. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in the last two of Durova's proposals, particularly the second, but I'd like to see some clarification of the 'obviously a sockpuppet' bit. Per my remarks above, I think that the thinking in that regard may be a little wonky. Relata refero 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, This is why I think the evidence should be more open. The drama this has caused for a most likely innocent person (most likely outcome to be decided at the end of the investigation) is irreparable. The people who want to disrupt WP can and will use this to further their goals (This perfectly formatted edit brought to you by the preview button :) ).  spryde |  talk  19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are thinking of Wikipedia too much as a community that needs to be fair instead of as an encyclopedia that needs to be NPOV. WAS 4.250 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should go further than just addressing banned users. There are users with an history of disruption that take in new identities to seek adminship. In this context, I would argue for the need to make it compulsory for RFA nominees to disclose all current and past accounts and submit them to the scrutinity of the community. If the nominee is unwilling to disclose that information, the nomination should be voided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That I thoroughly agree with. Relata refero 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Asking the eventual question: What happens if a user discloses nothing and it is found they have had alternative accounts (for good or bad purposes)? I know that a severely bad account would be a swift boot to the butt as they are shown the door. But what about a marginal situation?  spryde |  talk  19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A user can chose not to disclose alternative accounts, at their peril. Once found out (and sooner or later they are found out), the embarrassment would just be an extra nail in their credibility coffin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both admins and admin candidates should disclose all alternate accounts (but not IPs) used within the last 12 months. WAS 4.250 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why 12 months? I would not limit it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this fully. Clarity and transparency is all I ask for as this does affect real people. 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In cases such as mine (see above), I would support this only if there was a guarantee that only admins would ever be able to see the disclosure. I'd also be concerned that ensuing discussion might involve discussion of edits made by the other account, thus still exposing the connection to the public. Personally, I believe that the work of my two accounts combined would present a far stronger case for adminship than one or the other on its own but I would rather decline nomination than be publicly outed in the process. A (probably controversial) alternative might be to RfA both accounts at once and have an admin place a comment connecting the two such that only admins can see it. Obviously, this all gets very complicated. This might also help to explain why I haven't gone to RfA to date... --AliceJMarkham 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alice, that wouldn't work because unfortunately we have admins who pass information to attack sites. If the disclosed information is to be kept secret, it would have to be given to a much smaller group than the entire adminship. The bureaucrats, perhaps, if not the ArbCom. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is good wording at Right to vanish that may apply to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It's quite simple, really. An indefinite block is precisely that: indefinite. I don't require personal information to review any WP:DUCK block, and I do quite a few of those for various reasons. If someone gets blocked inadvertently they can simply provide the previous account name or IP address they used, or provide reasoned explanations for their actions. That's rather easy to correct, and our priority as a project needs to be the project's overall functioning. There's a serious downside in too much good faith in a gameable policy, which the recent ArbCom decision demonstrates was being deliberately gamed. Occasionally with any policy, someone gets blocked by mistake. As long as there are reasonable venues for appeal that's a minor issue overall - the unblock on the editor's block log would note the reason for unblocking and the unblocking administrator would leave a message on the user talk page that could be cited if the unlikely event the issue ever got raised again. Durova Charge! 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we make it perfectly clear on block notices what they were blocked for if they are innocent that it is easy to appeal and how to do it, I am for that. I have never seen the wrong side a of a block notice so I don't know what it sasy (nor ever care to see one!). I am out as I have said what I felt needed to be said spryde  |  talk  20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several ways to appeal a block and most of the people who need it, pursue one of them. We try to make the right call in the first place, but being human we aren't perfect.  The key is to be effective at correcting mistakes and usually we're pretty good at that.  The problem this proposal addresses is a very real one, and I apologize for my first reply to you.  Durova Charge! 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with requiring admins to reveal their alternate accounts. The legitimate uses of alternate accounts apply to admins as well. For example an admin may have used their true identity in another account, or they may be using another account to work in an area that would be likely cause real life embarrassment. We all have the right to be anonymous if we are not causing trouble. 1 != 2  15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We are asking about RfAs. in which the questions can be simply : (a) Have you used other accounts?; (b) Were you other accounts(s) ever blocked for disruption? (c) Did you ever use these accounts in contravention to WP:SOCK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am saying that it is an inappropriate question as it makes giving up one's privacy required to be an admin. Why not ask their real name while we are at it? Asking "Do you have any alternate accounts that violate WP:SOCK" may be alright, but I really doubt it will flush out any sock puppets, more likely it will intimidate people into giving up personal information to pass RfA. Or even more likely scare people away from RfA altogether. Many people create a new account to become an admin because they know as an admin they will need extra privacy their original account cannot afford them. 1 != 2  15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument about "giving up one's privacy" is a red herring. All your accounts protect your identity, unless you have created an account with your real name. What we are discussing is the inappropriatenesses to have multiple socks, to bypass community scrutinity when it comes the time to assess an editor for purposes such as RfAs. If some people want to have multiple accounts, go ahead, but do not apply for adminship because you may need to answer these questions. What is the problem with that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that everyone has the privilege of keeping their legitimate alternate accounts private, even admins. If someone is bypassing scrutiny or violating the SOCK policy, what makes you think they will admit it in RfA? No, this will only encourage honest people to lie, surrender their legitimate privacy, or just not run for admin. 1 != 2  17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A Couple of personal responses, and ideas
Rather than reply piecemeal above, I thought I'd consolidate some responses, and ideas into a new section. First I'd ask people not to use me as an example - I don't believe I work well as an analogy, and would rather not feel like I should be responding to posts all over the place - suffice to say that I understand the issues some of my actions have raised, but don't agree that that is synonymous with me being dismissed as a 'disruptive editor' - I stand by the substance of all of my posts, and am here to try and help / work out where we as a community can draw some lines to avoid other editors having to go through the horrible situation I've been in.

Some of the ideas touted above represent a rather fundamental shift in approach. It seems to have almost been accepted in passing above, that in certain areas of the wiki, we should not only be free to, but should actively seek to 'comment on the contributor, not the content'. I'm not certain that this is either a good direction, or has community consensus. The danger with that approach is to facilitate the dismissal of points from a subset of editors (those without long established editing histories) without proper consideration of their content - this runs the risk of being unhealthy in my view.

I agree with SlimVirgin above that "unfortunately we have admins who pass information" - but not just to attack sites. In my case, I revealed a user history, which can be traced directly to my identity, to an admin, who has shared that information with many editors, despite my asking him not to. I for one would find it hard therefore to support a disclosure based policy without an accompanying ethical code to which the trusted parties would commit to, and be held accountable under.

Perhaps the 'large print' aspects of the policy can be strengthened first - such as 'It is utterly unacceptable to edit the same pages, in the same time frame, using different accounts.'

The other aspect which we are strongly butting against here is the concept, and limits, of pseudo anonymity - but I'll leave that for another time. Privatemusings 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * An example of problematic sockpuppetry on policy pages: we had an individual turn up at WP:V (as I recall, but I'm writing from memory, so it might have been NOR) arguing in favor of truth as the overriding principle, rather than reliability of the source. The reasons against this were patiently explained to him by many editors over a period of days, or even weeks. He then proceeded to turn up with various socks. Weeks would pass with no sign of him, then suddenly there he'd be again, same questions, requiring the same answers, from the same bunch of volunteers (it's worth bearing in mind that no one's being paid to do this, and that it can be incredibly time-consuming).


 * Should we be required each and every time to engage with this person simply because he calls himself X in March and Y in April? May we not at some point reasonably say "Enough of you if you don't have the integrity to tell us which Wikipedian you are"? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather think the honest answer is that it may actually be easier for all concerned either to patiently explain the matter each time, or to refer the possibly not good-faith editor back to previous discussions. I believe the editors at Intelligent Design for example have to deal with a steady stream of editors raising the same points, not because they are ill intentioned, but because they are the points that occur to many people. GTBacchus has written an interesting essay about the problems we encounter when we move to questions of integrity, and how self-defeating those questions are - I'll try and find the link because I think it's very good, and appropriate here. Privatemusings 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But you miss the point. My question was: when we know it's the same person, when we know it's a sock of another Wikipedian, why should we keep engaging, as if we don't know, as if forced to edit behind a veil of ignorance? If that person doesn't have the intregity to tell us who he is, why should we be expected to spend time on him? And if it's a question of the other account(s) leading to a real-life ID, a quick e-mail to at least some of the editors you're talking to would be enough &mdash; along the lines of "Oi, it's me." If you're not willing to do that, I'd say don't edit policy pages or arbcom cases. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (the essay link is WP:NOSPADE) - I don't think there's every any problem with good faith honesty - just saying 'I don't intend to prejudice this discusison, but I believe you may be a sock of x' - but we've already seen directly above that discussions can go off the rails quite easily - perhaps it would have been better had Durova's comments, now struck, had remained unsaid? (no big deal in this case, but this kind of conversation is going on all around the wiki). I'd say the other danger of an approach like this is that it supports entrenchment, which is unhealthy for any community.


 * Bottom line I guess is that if someone is wasting your time, it's probably better to disengage than to try and 'call' them on it - and if their points are substantive, then they should be heard. (and apologies that I won't be able to respond for several hours now - I sincerely appreciate the way you've chosen to have this conversation, Slim - thanks.) - Privatemusings 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not really addressing my point about integrity. Here's a suggestion: if you and I have ever engaged before, or if you think I'm likely to have heard of your previous accounts, please e-mail me and tell me what they are. I undertake not to publish them if I hear them from you directly. I would like to know whether you're someone I've previously had a problem with, or previously admired, or whatever, and I think as a matter of courtesy you ought to tell me if we're talking. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (after the following few posts) - Hi Slim, I had sent you an email a couple hours before this post - I had assumed you'd read it. I'd rather not discuss its content, but totally agree that when courtesy and trust are evident, it makes sense to be open and honest. Privatemusings 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that's not necessary, focus on the content, not the contributor. If any of us are tired of making the same point over and over again, then we should take policy pages off our watchlist. Either that, or summarize questions in a FAQ, and refer suspected socks to that FAQ. In addition, I strongly disagree with any innovation that gives those who have already had a large input into policy pages any more ammunition with which to ignore the suggestions of those who turn up; one already hears "this has been discussed" even if the points being made are fresh; one hears "how odd, you've decided to come to a policy page; is there a content dispute that turned over this policy somewhere in the past?"; now one will hear "How do we know you didn't try to do this last month?". Frankly, that's inappropriate. Relata refero 06:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessary, but I'm requesting it as a matter of courtesy. The focus-on-content argument ignores the point I raised above, namely that we can't be expected to edit behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, focusing exclusively on what is being said, and not on who is saying it. Both matter. If, just as an example, I have stalked you, telephoned your employer, and threatened your family with physical violence because I got upset about a content dispute we had, you should not be expected to engage with me just because I suddenly call myself Ms. X. Not that I'm suggesting PM is a stalker. I'm giving an extreme example to illustrate the point, but there are lots of other more likely scenarios in which it might be important to know which Wikipedian you're talking to, especially when it comes to policy pages, arbcom cases, and the like.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)If I have been stalked by a particular individual because of on-WP interaction, then I should expect that that individual is not welcome on WP under any guise. I understand we have bans for such individuals, and I see no reason why it is relevant to a discussion here.
 * The point I made to Jossi above, is that we are not a social networking site, we are an encylopaedia; on content and policy pages, unless demonstrated as tendentious by our processes, you are only as good as your last edit. I admit that the standards are different on RfAs; and if you are an involved party at ArbCom, for both of which cases I would support the full disclosure of all accounts. Otherwise, it is completely unnecessary, counterproductive, and runs against exactly what WP is supposed to do. Relata refero 07:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you keep missing a fundamental point. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a community as well. And it is only because there are simple rules and regulations for community members to engage, that we have an encyclopedia. You also miss the point that Wikipedia does not ask you to disclose your real life identity. In these cases, the potential for abuse is tremendous, and the community needs ways to protect itself from those that attenpt to game the system and get away with it. I think this is at the core of this discussion: Yes, we do not discuss the editor, we discuss the edit; but our good faith policy does not extend to those that harm editors, the community, or the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I sympathize with Privatemusings' request not to have his case used as an example, examples are picked because they are germane. That account was created with the stated intent of participating in disputes that the editor predicted would generate anger and hot feelings, and he wanted his main account protected from the repercussions of those feelings. At the time he did so, the policy was written such that it implied such an action was OK. Clearly, the actions of the account have generated anger, even on the part of the editor himself. I think we can say that the example shows that using sock puppets to deflect responsibility for edits and opinions is not helpful, and may even exacerbate matters. I don't see any good reason to leave the loophole open. In my opinion there is really no good reason for an editor to intentionally use a sock puppet in order to engage in a dispute. If it's necessary to abandon a username that's too revealing of personal information then that's fine, and doesn't require using socks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And of course if PM's other account(s) stand for adminship one day, or bureaucrat, or ArbCom, the rest of us should be entitled to say: "That's the disruptive account that caused a ton of trouble back in 2007," or "This is a wonderful person who made a really valuable contribution and ended up being wrongly attacked for it." That's what the word integrity means. Wholeness. Splitting ourselves into different accounts may be fine for articles, where all that really matters is that you use good sources properly. But splitting ourselves up to debate policy, especially controversial ones, and to engage in arbcom cases, is in a very real sense to make fools of our peers, and that can't be the basis of genuinely collaborative relationships. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, if we are required to judge an individual's integrity, as we are required to for those elections, it is necessary, I agree, to view the entirety of their on-WP activity. But you seem to think that in order to judge the validity of an argument on a policy page, it is required to know the entirety of on-WP activity: and that is simply not true, nor is it fair or, indeed, moral to impose such a requirement. Purely practically, it means that the substantive nature of points raised are to be buried in judgments of why a particular person is raising them. I have not seen yet a single argument as to why that is likely to lead to better policy; if in articles all that matters is good sources correctly used, in policy all that matters is correct arguments persuasively made. You are asking us to eviscerate both the assumption of good faith and the assumption that the contribution is what matters; and in return for that, according to your argument, we will get nothing but a reason to pre-judge the value of an argument. I cannot see how this trade benefits WP. Relata refero 09:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While we should all try to focus only one the content, personnel issues do come up anway. For example, sometimes one editor will think that another is being rude in a dispute. Sure, the content is what matters most but we also need to be civil towrds one another to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Uncivil words and actions are unhelpful and those responsible should be held responsible. We must not allow some editors to create accounts so they can be uncivil to others without repercussions. An entirely different reason to prohibit sock puppets is that they can be used to mask broad campaigns of POV pushing or other marginal behaviors. Each account may seem only a little troublesome and so the real problem escapes attention. (That's why we explictly prhobit using socks to avoid scrutiny). One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is one editor-one account. The loopholes that allow certain uses of sock puppets have encouraged an acceptance of sock puppetry that has casued harm and does not have any significant, demonstrable benefits. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, once again, if I had the slightest reason to believe that the majority of incivility on the project was from sockpuppets of this sort rather than high-edit count tendentious editors, I'd be more inclined to believe you about the harm. Do you have any such reason? Relata refero 07:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Content is the end result of a collaborative effort based on the principle of good faith. Remove the good faith aspects, remove the human element, remove the community aspects of this project, and the end result is not a happening thing. Credibility and responsibilities of editors as peers in a collaborative environment is not only a nice thing to have: it is the basis upon which this project exists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Relata refero 07:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Undeclared sock puppets are mostly trouble
Why should we give an idea serious consideration if the person who proposes it doesn't want to be associated? I think undeclared sock puppets should only be allowed with permission from WikiMedia Foundation, just like role accounts require permission. If there is a good reason, permission can be granted, but most of the time there is no reason whatsoever, and the policy is gamed to permit disruption. Declared sockpuppets like User:Bishzilla aren't a problem. - Jehochman Talk 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation stays out of this type of internal issue. If an approval process like this is desired then the ArbCom or perhaps the bureaucrats would be better situated to handle it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly trouble? Fact. You're drawing that statistic solely from once-undeclared socks which have been exposed. Exposition and trouble correlate rather strongly. Unless you have a representative selection of undeclared accounts, it's probably best to avoid statements like this - how do you know there aren't 100 good undeclared socks to every one that ends up on AN/I? Picaroon (t) 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Therein lies a major part of the problem. Because it requires so much effort to recognize and name sock puppets only the most obvious and egregious are exposed. There are large numbers of accounts that cause problems and are bvious socks, but which can't be tied to another account and whose owners may claim, if accused of being a sock, that the policy permits the use of socks in their circumstances. That then requires the rest of the community to actually prove that the sock, who may have only a brief edit history, is being used for harmful intent, and to figure out to whom it belongs. Only if an account is acting badly enough for long enough, and is not covering their tracks, will it be exposed as a sock. You bring up a burden of proof issue. We all know there've been dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of major problems with sock-using editors. Can you give a single example of a case where using a sock has helped develop Wikipedia significantly? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your question, like Jehochman's statement, draws a comparison between the pools of misused, once-undeclared socks that have been exposed vs appropriately used, once-undeclared socks that have been exposed. But since good, previously undeclared socks aren't exposed with any regularity, and I don't care to expose the unnamed number I may or may not be aware of (fnord), I can't think of a single example I am able to or wish to share. Making statements regarding what you know about exposed socks and generalizing by suggesting the statement applies to all socks is flawed on its face, because there is no proof that the good/bad ratio for exposed socks is anywhere near the good/bad ration for unexposed socks. Picaroon (t) 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're complaining if someone asserts that the harm caused by socks outweigh their benefits, but you're unable to point to a single example of a beneficial use of a sock. Unless there's a counter example it is a fair inference that using socks is not beneficial. Even if a couple of examples are found of good edits that wouldn't have been made without recourse to socks, socks have caused so much disruption to the community that it's impossible to believe that they are a net benefit. Again, if there were any proof to the contrary there might be something worth debating. There isn't any proof that using allowing socks has ever aided this project, and there's plenty of proof that their use has harmed it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of recent experience. Editors who don't take responsibility for their contributions are a huge source of trouble. - Jehochman  Talk 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How does using multiple accounts in an upstanding manner (not for creating controversy, etc) to hide an editor's actual identity cause them to take any less responsibility for their contributions than editors who only have one account but don't reveal their actual identity? --Philosophus T 08:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of recent experience. Administrators who don't take responsibility for their incompetent sockhunting errors are a huge source of trouble.81.193.198.12 (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that my use of a sock, as explained above, is detrimental to Wikipedia? If so, would you be so kind as to explain why you think so, so that I can work to improve my editing? There have been at least two examples given recently on this page of editors who need to use socks in order to avoid off-wiki issues, and I believe the practice is not uncommon in questionable scientific areas, where many editors could revealed by their expertise and there are numerous crackpots who are willing to resort to off-wiki harassment. --Philosophus T 08:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already outlined my circumstances, which I believe are a perfect example of a valid use for 2 accounts. One account is in my real name, a qualified expert in a specific field, with contributions including article creation and improvement, vandalism reversion, contribution to AfDs, membership of at least one wikiproject, etc. The 2nd account is specifically concerned with transgender related articles, and has been involved in all of the same types of work (but in a completely separate set of articles), plus documenting the multiple accounts of an indef blocked puppeteer and being a first point of reference for the LGBT project on transgender subjects. There is a necessity to separate the two accounts. You appear to be ignoring the fact that I have already outlined this scenario, then asked again for an example as if the example already given is invalid. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately trying to insult me, but that is the impression that I'm getting. --AliceJMarkham 08:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Privacy and multiple accounts
Several people have argued above for a link between privacy and an editor's right for multiple accounts. But is there such a link? If a person has two accounts, both of which are pseudonyms, how can be talk about protecting privacy by allowing several accounts to co-exist? We are not protecting privacy, but disregarding accountability. The privacy of an editor is protected by the Foundation's privacy policy, but that does not mean that we extend the courtesy of multiple accounts to avoid community scrutinity or to mislead others. One person-one account is a principle that needs to be respected, with some exception .... for exceptional cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The legitimate exceptions that have been put to me include people who are open about their real world identity and need to protect that in order to do something of tangible benefit to the project, such as rooting round Amorrow's socks or cleaning up after pro-paedophile activists.  I think that we should cast this in terms of what is provably beneficial to the process of building an encyclopaedia; I believe that thinking in those terms is likely to be more productive than circular arguments about how many edits an account might need before a sock can be used to advocate moving George W. Bush to Poop or whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that we don't allow multiple people to use one account without permission, and we shouldn't allow one person to secretly use multiple accounts without permission. Much trouble comes from that sort of activity. Proposed wording follows. - Jehochman  Talk 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would extend it as follows: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We could transition to having only approved unassociated socks by beginning right now an opt-in Approved unassociated socks list approved, maintained and only accessible by check-users. The idea is to start voluntarily, see how it goes, get the kinks out of the process, and eventually to tell people that unapproved unassociated socks must be abandoned by such and such a date to maintain compliance with the English language Wikipedia policy. An unassociated sock is defined here as any deliberate attempt to act like you are somebody else; whether with a different username that does not say it is a sock of the other username or deliberate use of IP (not logging in) to avoid being connected to a non-abandoned username or to an abandoned but blocked/banned username. WAS 4.250 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, a thousand times no. We allow multiple accounts for a reason. We already prohibit the abuse of multiple accounts, so nothing can be served by prohibiting non abusive use. I know at least two people who have OTRS rights that I do not trust so I won't be revealing my other accounts there. This has not been an issue, abusive socks are often found and blocked. We should be hard on abusive socks, but requiring a database correlating the different accounts is against the spirit of allowing anonymous editing. This sock policy has been functioning fine for a long time and this will only serve to make honest people into policy breakers. 1 != 2  18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This wording is far, far too strong, and I would strongly oppose it, as would, I suspect, large numbers of other people. I notice this policy page has, like most others, a larger proportion of high-edit count, long-established accounts. This is far from being the case for WP in general; I am forced to conclude that this group of people is not necessarily representative. If nothing else, this is a severely restrictive regulation that provides far too much discretion with those with power to apply sanctions for its misuse. Relata refero 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You yourself were a high-edit count, established account in your previous avatar, . Baka man  01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's where we get into the confusion of multiple accounts. Someone has asserted that "Relata refero" is a new account of a user who has been at Wikipedia since May 2005, if not as early as December 2004. If so then the editor has been around longer than most members of the community, despite having a new account. If we're going to judge editors by their edit counts and longevity, multiple accounts muddy the waters. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And we should not be judging editors by their edit counts or longevity, except when we must, at RfAs or when they are involved parties at ArbCom. (In actual fact, as an anon and with other accounts, I have been around since early 2003, and have quite lost track of my edit count; I have thus a long enough view to remember both when 'longevity' was an absurd criterion, and to understand the pernicious effects of continually focusing on the contributor and not the comment.) Relata refero 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, is the new avatar of . I am the "incivil user" frequently complained about by him on these and other boards, and discovered his identity. For a history of my interactions with him, see arbcom - Hkelkar 2 and Hkelkar 1. Baka  man  01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned to this user before, the point of a new account is to leave old accounts behind; I would still edit as an IP if it hadn't become fashionable to assume that IPs have nothing good to say, or are all sockpuppets of some disruptive editor. (Given that I wish to leave old accounts behind, I try to avoid discussing the truth or falsity of various guesses; however, to try and silence this persistent editor who is clearly not quite as good as going through contribution histories as he thinks he is, I draw his attention to this edit, which rather conclusively demonstrates my location. I invite him to compare it to what is known about the other account he mentions. This illustrates the pointlessness, sometimes misleading, in most cases, of attempting to focus on who someone is rather than what they are saying.) Relata refero 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a good thing? We shouldn't be judging editors by their perceived edit counts and longevity, provided that they aren't clearly new or inexperienced. But I also disagree with Relato refero's complaint here. Well-established editors edit policy because they are best able to understand it. --Philosophus T 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For reference, it was Relato who first raised the subject of judging this discussion based on the longevity and edit counts of the participants, seeming to imply that he was different from the other editors here. While I'm not calling that a sock account, this is the type of problem we have with some sock accounts, who pop up in discussions assuming stances that would be preposterous or hypocritical if everyone knew the actual history of the user. If editor X has been engaged in an uncivil dispute with editor Y, is it OK for X to call himself Z and, with seemingly clean hands, complain about editor Y's incivility? Certainly not. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I in fact neither made nor claimed any such implication. It was precisely because you wished to assume knowledge of why I was saying something that you made that assumption; if you did not attempt to focus on that, you might have noticed the content: that what I pointed out holds true even if I did claim to be different, since I specifically used the words "account", rather than your paraphrase of "participants".
 * You seem to think that hypocrisy is terrible. It irritates me extremely; but I do not think that we need to, in a large project like this, spend time pointing fingers at X saying "but you did it too!" if what X is saying about Y is true. You seem to think that if Y is uncivil, we need to know that X's hands are clean. No we don't. That's the problem. Block Y if he deserves it. More often than not, X will get blocked too. Relata refero 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or for example, if editor X has engaged in editwarring and blocked 10 times in previous accounts for edit warring, and engaged in misusing of sources, quote mining and other such POV pushing, would it be OK to call himself Z, with exigencies that we assume the good faith of his edits and conveniently forget is history of disruption in evaluating his contributions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Straw man. It's for editors like that that WP:DE and ArbCom exist. Enough people have noticed that ArbCom isn't doing its job getting rid of tendentious editors (amnesties all round a little too often) that I expect the new intake will have strong views on the subject. Relata refero 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Help me understand. Why do you need to use sockpuppets?  How does this make the encyclopedia better? - Jehochman  Talk 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They allow me, and many other editors, to edit in more than one topic without causing off-wiki problems. --Philosophus T 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would editing under "Philosophus" cause off-wiki problems? If it were your real name I could see that you might want to change it, but that seems fairly anonymous already. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned here that, like Alice, I have another account under my real name, and I have specific expertise and interests that would identify me if I made all of my edits with one account. --Philosophus T 07:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the few credible reasons for using an alternate account is where the main account is traceable to real world identity, to allow editing of content which you don't want to be associated with your RWI. In such circumstances people have in the past emailed the arbitrators or checkusers to state the facts.  One example I've been given is an editor cleaning up a nest of POV editing on articles related to pedophilia; the editor's professional reputation would have been damaged if they had been seen to edit pedophilia articles, but they had a sincere desire to help the encyclopaedia in a very difficult area.  Unfortunately a lot of the recent examples have been vastly less compelling: accounts where RWI is not associated, and where the area to be edited is contentious policy not content which causes real-world problems for people.  We have some very controversial content areas - pedophilia, scientology, La Rouche - where vicious attacks have been made on people who strive for neutrality.
 * The trouble is, the policy exception which was written to enable that is being abused. An editor with under 400 mainspace edits (and under 600 under a previous name), largely to controversial subjects, registered an alternate account to lobby for the inclusion of links to sites which attack and harass Wikipedia editors, and did so in a way which implied they were a long-time respected editor, rather than an occasional editor with a rather chequered history.  The declaration of the independent account was made in such a way as to ask for more weight to be given to their view than might have been the case with their other account.  And to keep the other account with only some rather than a lot of controversial history. This case, according to several arbitrators, was inappropriate, but people are reading this policy and saying that, well, it wasn't proscribed.
 * The point of having an account is partly to help people get a picture of you, your views, your interests and hot buttons and so on. Splitting edits over multiple accounts damages that, and also damages those who are prepared to make or advocate controversial edits with their main account.  This last is an especial problem, IMO.  People who are prepared to engage in debate under their main identity are at a disadvantage when compared to people with controversies all hived off into a second account. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not about discretion to apply sanctions indiscriminately, Relata. We have seen it all: people that get another account to harass themselves with the purpose of soliciting a checkuser on an opponent; people that create multiple dormant accounts that show up mysteriously in AfDs; people that come out of the blue in ArbCom cases to argue for specific remedies against opponents, hiding their true identity so as to avoid accountability for their comments; people that abuse their editing privileges, get blocked, only to get a new account and start all anew, knowing that the community will extend good faith at least for a while, and continue disrupting; people that get accounts and editwar against their POVs, just to cast their opponents in a bad light upon claims of meatpuppetry. Sure, we need to assume good faith, but we do not need to be suckers for those that game the system. If you disagree with the proposals made, I would expect a counter proposal that address this mess, rather than a dimissal because it is too strong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here, as I've stated repeatedly, is that the if the proposal were implemented as described, it would forbid perfectly legitimate behavior in order to combat some recent forms of illegitimate sockpuppetry. We shouldn't have to give counter-proposals when we disagree with proposals that would prevent us from editing as collateral damage. --Philosophus T 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of such behaviour seen recently - and that which caused this debate - was not perfectly legitimate. The "perfectly legitimate" uses are few and far between. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) One thing we do know is that Burntsauce was a sock account started to make trouble, and that padded its contribution history with wikignome work in order to get away with making trouble, and caused enormous headaches for a lot of other Wikipedians in the process. This non abusive use is getting gamed, and Burntsauce is not the only account that has been used for that purpose, and we have a legitimate cause to amend the policy accordingly. I'm all for amending it in ways that have minimal impact on other editors, but it is necessary to put an end to that particular game. Durova Charge! 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with the case, but the ArbCom findings make me confused as to how these proposal would have changed that case. There is no certain conclusion of sockpuppetry there, it doesn't appear that there was any clear evidence of actual sockpuppetry, and from my interpretation of the other findings Burntsauce was already violating policy by acting as a semi-proxy for a banned user. And so this brings us to the same question that is often asked of airport security proposals: How would these proposals have caused that case to go differently? Burntsauce didn't declare themself as a sockpuppet, so obviously someone would have to provide evidence of actual sockpuppetry in order to have proposals apply. But it seems like that evidence only came out in arbitration anyway, and Burntsauce could already be banned from other policies. Considering ArbCom didn't conclude that they were a sockpuppet, it's unclear whether the policy could have ever been used.
 * Similarly, in Privatemusings' case, it seems to me that the proposal would only have applied because of the declaration made by the editor. What if they had decided to simply operate as an undeclared sockpuppet instead, perhaps using two different IPs as well? Considering that one of the major points of them having two different accounts was to take a very different tone, doesn't it seem unlikely that the problem would have been caught if they had hidden the sockpuppetry? Isn't that exactly what this sort of policy change would encourage? This would be the case even for legitimate editors: the only reason this proposal could be enforced against me is because I chose to declare my sockpuppetry rather than keep it secret. --Philosophus T 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am intimately acquainted with that case. Yes, Burntsauce was a sockpuppet.  I indeffed it on 12 April 2007 as such.  Had this policy been stronger, Burntsauce would have stayed blocked.  It's that simple.  This site put up with six months of disruption because this policy has shortcomings, and Burntsauce was not the only sockpuppet of that ilk.  Durova Charge! 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you're talking about your proposal, and I'm talking about SlimVirgin's only-article-space proposal. Yes, it's certainly obvious how your proposals would have made banning Burntsauce easier. My only concern with those is that they are perhaps too subjective, and could lead to huge debates as to whether a particular user is an obvious abusive sockpuppet. But from a practical standpoint, those things nearly always are obvious. Sorry about my confusion there; the proposals here are all contained in one large discussion and are rather difficult to separate. --Philosophus T 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the methods for uncovering these are rather well established. There are only really two challenges at hand: strengthening the policy so that administrators are on solid footing when they act in these cases, and exercising some discretion so the sockpuppeteers don't figure out exactly where their mistakes are.  There's a small cluster of diligent banned editors who pool tactics.  One way or another, we need to change this policy so we're more effective at addressing their disruption.  The only question is which modification to implement.  Durova Charge! 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change policy to fight off a small pool of banned editors at the risk of giving enormous amounts of discretion to ban any new account that behaves itself suspiciously well! I suggest you take a moment to think about this carefully; I believe that you will realise this is enough of an overreaction that it will cause more drama on AN/I and elsewhere, not less. Also, I strongly wish to point out that I have seen nothing so far that suggests that the diligent banned editors are in any way running GHBH accounts. More effective policing of those editors has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation. I'm sorry, I made the same error as Philosophus above. But it is true that the levels of discretion implied are far too high for any one of us to feel comfortable with, especially now that un-blocking has become such a big deal and that standards at RfAs have dropped. Relata refero 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Either proposal seems to offer an improvement so I won't pick a favorite. Sockpuppetry in article space, perhaps not as disruptive on a case-by-case basis, should also be discouraged. The salient point for me is to create an encyclopedia, not a social network. Thus, sensible policies to foster good writing take precedence over fairness, privacy, freedom of expression, and other personal liberties. Of course Wikipedia should be an attractive, safe, humane place for people to invest their creative energies. But we balance things differently than imdb, zagat, linkedin, second life. We are nothing to each other but our words here. Not the latest edits but the entirety of our contributions, mediated by the filters people use to appraise each other for whatever purpose. The behavior does not have to sink to wikigaming, agenda pushing, concealing past disruptions or enabling new ones, before we notice. It could be simple courtesy or lack thereof, or competence. Nor is it just policy space, votes, and adminship. We encounter each other in article space all the time. Suppose someone makes a bold edit. The first human reaction is "who is  this?" Are they credible? Informed? Can they write well? Do they know what they are doing? Are they sincere or is there a hidden agenda? Through associations of moments or days we form teams to improve an article or fend off article entropy. We can sniff them out by checking their user page, their talk page, their edit history. If someone does good work once we trust their judgment later, follow their advice when we see them again. If they are rude or erratic we avoid them later. It is corrosive to the trust needed for collaboration when people are not who they seem to be, even for arguably legitimate purposes. It is embarrassing to make an impassioned argument to someone who is masquerading as someone else, who knows who you are when you do not know who they are. It is chilling to get into an exchange with a rude, haughty, scolding (but within the bounds of unsanctionable behavior) loose cannon of a user, only to find the person is an influential administrator known for an itchy block finger, who is slumming in article space under a fake identity. All that subterfuge, playacting, and drama put us in a world of shadows. It puts the sincere, simple, aboveboard editor at a disadvantage. The sockpuppet nothing to lose, so respects things less. There is no bright line beyond wich the sockpuppet is abusive. It is more of an inherent conflict. How often is there an overriding reason to have more than one Wikipedia identity? Suppose an otherwise respectable editor wishes to work on articles that, should his interest in them become known, would subject their main Wikipedia persona or real life reputation to ridicule or disrepute. Must we protect them? Do we really need to create a safe haven for, say, business leaders to dabble in pornography or medieval torture techniques? For scientists to opine on conspiracy theories and fan fiction? Are their missing contributions such a loss to the world that we can't entrust articles to those who are willing to stand up for their work? Facilitating hidden multiple online identities is a convenience for individual users; transparency is for the better of all. I see nothing wrong with making people choose, and to some degree facing the consequences of their edits. We deal with that in real life too. A cross dresser who works in politics or around children may have to put one side of his life on hold for the other, or be extra careful. We are an encyclopedia, not a safe house. Meeting people's human needs should not come at great expense to the integrity of the project. As things stand we host some rather creative experiments in online identity. Too many, in my opinion. I favor a blanket ban on sockpuppets as the baseline, meaning no knowing or intentional use of multiple simultaneous accounts, dormant accounts, or identity changes (the exception being innocent mistakes or forgetting). And then exceptions along some criteria for reason or approval process, with appropriate limits, registration, and oversight. But the exceptions should be discouraged because the information is available only to a select few, and only in times of serious dispute. Registration and justification does not address the day to day matter of knowing who you are dealing with. - Wikidemo 17:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, I agree completely. Also, we are no longer an obscure site begging for contributors, but instead we are a top 10 web site attracting everyone in the world with an idea or product to promote. It's time Wikipedia matured. WAS 4.250 21:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No way was that a minor edit. Now you may have excellent reasons, based upon the entirety of your history, that cause you to mark this edit as minor. But I neither have the time nor the inclination to look into them; and any policy that would encourage me to waste time looking into that rather than simply noting and processing what you say, and assuming that you made a mistake. I think I see where I erred in why you marked that last edit as minor (my fault) but I believe that my instinct there, to ignore your possible motivations and focus on what you say, is even more relevant in that light.
 * Of your impassioned statement, I see one particular sentence in particular: " It puts the sincere, simple, aboveboard editor at a disadvantage." This is simply untrue. The sincere, simple, aboveboard editor should not react as you seem to think he does, by observing a bold edit and immediately trying to deduce an agenda.
 * I have no words for how wrong you are about everything, how difficult this will be to implement, how much it ignores the growth of WP and the tendency of most people to find their way around before they commit, how much it will lead to the debasement of our discourse when we start hunting around for reasons why a new account sounds competent. Relata refero 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wikidemo, who made a solid argument that reflects the fact that we are human beings, and that trust and accountability is a value that is required to foster a collaborative environment. As for your statement above, it is actually the growth of WP that makes previous lenient attitudes no longer workable: As WP becomes more important as a source of information for the public, the potential for abuse increases, and we should enact and enforce policies that protects the project from such abuses and puts the burden on its users to demonstrate good faith, intentions and motives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's what you believe, then I suggest you go and try to change WP:AGF first.
 * AGF exists precisely because we cant and shouldnt spend our time second-guessing why something is being said. And you're wrong on several other levels; for one, the growth of WP means more and more people will come in who sound like someone who was here before. Are they all going to be banned on sight? Relata refero 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a poor straw man argument, Relata. Banning on sight is not what is being discussed, neither second guessing editors' intentions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a straw man that you suggest that we abandon AGF, and it isnt a straw man that what you suggest would give sysops the discretion to ban on the basis of such flimsiness. Do you deny it? You merely seem to suggest that admins are all such nice chaps that it wouldn't happen often. I'm sorry, but policy cannot be made on that basis. Relata refero 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relata refero, I do not recall encountering you before on Wikipedia and I don't know what your sensitive issues might be. It seems I triggered one.  I assumed that your deletion of my post without comment  was inadvertent, which is why I marked it minor upon reposting.  This seemed to be a civil, productive, drama free, and very intelligent (SlimVirgin is quoting Rawls for goodness sake) discussion and I wanted to contribute.  This was not directed to you at all, just my general opinion.  It is an opinion, not a proposal.  I doubt anyone would go as far as I suggest in prohibiting alternate accounts, but if my ideas have merit perhaps they can inform the debate.  If you have a particular reason for disagreeing I would be happy to hear it.  I believe my comments are valid and relevant or else I would not have posed them.  I actually spent a good while composing my thoughts out of respect for all of the prominent insightful old timers here.Wikidemo 19:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Are their missing contributions such a loss to the world that we can't entrust articles to those who are willing to stand up for their work? Facilitating hidden multiple online identities is a convenience for individual users; transparency is for the better of all." Yes, lets all declare our true identities, and edit then. Well, that won't pass. OK, then one identity: how does that matter? Well, you do scare off the scientists who edit on fan fiction, as you point out. Trouble is, what will suffer wont be the articles on fanfiction, but those on science. One thing I can say for certain: you want experts? You won't get any if you insist they edit their area of expertise and their fetish models with the same account. Relata refero 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misread my comments. I am arguing in favor of keeping a single stable Wikipedia identity, not using your real-world name.  Yes, that would imply that you cannot use your real name for edits you are proud of, and a second identity for edits that you don't want people to know about.  There would have to be a compelling reason.  We all live within constraints.  Sometimes those are a good thing. Wikidemo 08:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm guessing that some of you may not have read the entire discussion before posting your comments. Perhaps those of you who don't understand the need for unconnected multiple accounts on the part of genuine contributors might like to scroll up and read my comments immediately below the subheading Random break 1, then explain to me why I should have to be "outed" in real life in order to be allowed to continue to make substantive contributions to transgender and related articles. Assume that my other account is in my real name. --AliceJMarkham 23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one read and took this to heart, and think that a plausible fear of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment should one's gender identity be revealed is a compelling reason to allow a sockpuppet. So under this scheme you would register your sockpuppet and agree to only use it within a specific range of functions.  The information would be kept in some kind of locked format, available only to a small group of trusted bureaucrats on a need to know basis, subject to privacy restrictions.  You would not be outed for using an approved sockpuppet.  Violate the terms and your sockpuppet is blocked and you may lose your sockpuppet privileges.  Nobody has to know what happened but you and the bureaucrats.  Depending on how this is implemented the sockpuppet account might have to reveal to all (1) that it is an approved sockpuppet, and (2) the scope of the sockpuppet's authorized edits.  There's nothing discriminatory about Wikipedia placing reasonable restrictions on how people spin off multiple identities.  Wikipedia isn't discriminating.  It's a question of how far we will go to protect members against the prejudices of the outside world. Wikidemo 08:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you need an account in your real name if you're afraid of the repercussions of your editing? There's no requirement to use your real name. This simplest solution would be to either change usernames or to stop using your real-life name and pick a pseudonym. There's no need for multiple accounts in order to maintain privacy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets see. Recognised and acknowledged expert in a specific field. If I was to discontinue that account and change to a single account editing all of the same subject areas as well as the ones that I use this account to edit, the other editors in those areas would identify me pretty much immediately. The suggestion of a single account editing in all areas would equate to guaranteed outing, or a complete departure from one or the other of my areas of interest. The declaration of my expert status has worked to reduce my workload in dealing with content disputes with misinformed editors, and hiding that would increase time-wasting disputes as occurred before I declared my expert status. Under the current circumstances, I would be able to attend wikimeetups (and may already have) without having to mention my TG status or this account. The proposal would preclude that.


 * It is my considered opinion that the proposal as outlined is discriminatory and would damage wikipedia. --AliceJMarkham 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a bit convoluted. In any case, the proposal below would address your concern. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it? Why should this information be made available to CUers without some restrictions on when CUers are permitted to publicise it? Relata refero 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * that sounds like a worthwhile provision. Why don't you suggest it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at Philosophus' suggestion below with some care. It says merely 'abuse', but I would be happier if I saw some clearer definition there. (We don't want a repeat of the CharlotteWebb drama, for example.) Relata refero 07:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this my proposal with or without the "don't disclose real names" addition. CheckUser use, per CU policy, is regulated by a privacy policy, and we could strengthen that if there are concerns. I think the best thing to do, in the event of an listed sockpuppet abusing the status, would be to ban the account after discussion among checkusers, without disclosing the relations to the public. This should be followed even more strictly when one of the accounts can easily be linked to a real person, and could be explicitly stated either in the policy or the privacy policy. Either way, this is a problem with CheckUser as a whole, not just the Listing proposal.  --Philosophus T 07:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For some reason yet to be explained, Jehochman blanked this comment and then blocked me as an "abusive sockpuppet".

The reason some participants are having a difficult time with the wording is because wey're trying to find a policy which allows our own socks, and those of our friends, while disallowing socks of those we dislike. Some of the participants here are themselves sockpuppets. The red lines that are being proposed, such as participating in mainspace, but not project discussions, are just random tangential facts which are being reified as a substitute for what is actually desired: a trusted (by itself) in-group which can use socks freely - even obtaining sysop privileges on their sock accounts - and an out-group which will be left exposed to the very same modes of harassment which drive administrators to sock to begin with.

The underlying problem is Wikipedia's failure, from the very highest levels to the lowest, to establish an environment in which contributors are rightly afraid to edit with usernames thatcan be or have been tied to their identities. Short of that, we’re left scrambling to determine who is allowed behind the magic firewall, and who’s left exposed to the elements. The ambient hostility has become a part of the strategic geography - the most effective way of getting back at a wikienemy is to disseminate idenitifying personal details, either on or off-wiki, and let the trolls take it from there. This strategy, which not long ago would have thought beneath any of us, has been adopted at all levels of authority. Continued reliance on these hardball tactics virtually guarantees that the outcome of this discussion will somehow, someway, approximate the brief and honest metric I suggested above.24.19.33.82 07:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're finding cabals where there aren't any. I believe the problem you're noticing is actually that legitimate uses of sockpuppetry are varied, depend highly on the needs of individuals in special cases, and aren't publicized much for obvious reasons. It's difficult to come up with a policy that allows all of these uses while making abusive sockpuppetry harder. SlimVirgin didn't see the need for sockpuppets to edit policy pages, and saw that as a major area of abuse in light of recent events. Others then came and gave examples of where legitimate sockpuppets should be able to edit policy pages. I believe that the proposal being devised below will provide for an adequate solution against sockpuppet abuse that will also strengthen the privacy of sockpuppet users. Remember, right now no one is behind the sort of "magic firewall" you speak of, and every user is at risk of having sockpuppets identified. Hopefully, in adding the policy below, we will be able to change that, so that socks who choose to violate the policy in a difficult-to-detect way can have their associations released, whereas socks who declare themselves to the list will gain privacy protection. In fact, this might even be a good incentive for the list. I may discuss this further below. --Philosophus T 07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When several known sockpuppets have been granted sysop status on their puppet accounts, I think it's safe to say that they are behind the magic firewall. Mind you, I'm not against this, in light of the circumstances - it's just that others operating in the same environment deserve the same consideration.24.19.33.82 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the rules are not designed to create a fair community, nor to allow for freedom of speech. The rules are to facilitate the creation of a free-of-charge copy-left (that's what we mean by "free") NPOV (unbiased) encyclopedia (that it is not perfect, does not preclude it from being useful as an encyclopedia). People who are widely seen as helping are rightly given wide latitude. People widely seen as mistaking this for a freedom of speech community and therefore righteously indignant over their inability to demand equality and fairness will find themselves blocked/banned for disruption. Some people just don't get it. WAS 4.250 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the point of IAR: if the rules aren't to the benefit of the encyclopedia in a certain circumstance, then they should be ignored. It's important not to forget that when discussing Wikipedia policy. Not everyone deserves the same consideration. Now, if the allowances for those users are detracting from the improvement of the encyclopedia, then there is a problem. But I, at least, haven't seen that happening. --Philosophus T 06:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR was meant to prevent red tape from getting in the way of building an encyclopedia, not to justify a situation where well-connected administrators are able to ignore the rules that everyone else is supposed to follow. All contributors should be able to protect themselves from harassment, not just administrators. If socks are needed to that, then they are. If they're not, then administrators should be the first to disclose their sockpuppet accounts, including those with sysop privileges.81.193.198.12 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for immediate voluntary "Approved unassociated socks list"
Elements of this proposal:
 * 1) Because it begins voluntarily, it can begin immediately.
 * 2) There is no need to make it mandatory until the kinks are worked out.
 * 3) Associated socks are still allowed without any approval.
 * 4) Approval and access to the list is limited to check-users.
 * 5) When the kinks are worked out, the transition to mandatory can be as gradual as needed to allow people to quietly abandon old accounts if they choose.
 * 6) Making public or getting approval for old accounts is not needed if they are abandoned (having admins and admin candidates disclose even abandoned accounts to check-users would be a later possible refinement/addition).
 * 7) The definition "non-associated sock" is limited to deliberate attempts to act like you are somebody else.
 * 8) This proposal allows for abandoning non-blocked non-banned accounts. People are allowed to start over. This could be restricted/refined over time. For now it makes sense to simply move to limit current active multiple account use.

Comments
Comments? WAS 4.250 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this looks very workable. Checkusers are a small group of the must trusted users who are overseen by ombudsman. It has a reasonable method of phasing it so it won't be disruptive. It still allows some sock puppets for legitimate uses. Since we don't know how many socks are in use it's hard to estimate the workload, but the range of legitimate uses covers a fairly small field so I'd presume there'd be fewer than a couple of thousand registeres socks once it's fully implemented. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm...A week ago, I would have said this was a good idea. But now, it seems, at least one checkuser from another project has stuck his nose into English Wikipedia. So it seems we have a privacy issue even amongst checkusers. So - where will this list be kept, and how can it be kept confidential?  And is there any indication whatsoever that the current checkusers as a group are interested in having this responsibility added into their portfolio? Risker 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a lot of merit in pursuing this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some support for this as a concept - presumably if this were in place, I could have submitted my information, confident that it would remain private, and much drama would have been avoided. I do however share Risker's reservations above, and continue to believe that though a small, pragmatic step, this represents a large philosophical and fundamental shift in core culture, the full ramifications of which may not be desirable. My jury's out. Privatemusings 03:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rather uncertain as well. My first thought was that I would be more comfortable with the trusted group being ArbCom instead of Checkusers. After thinking about this for a while, however, I realized that Checkusers are going to be able, in nearly all cases, to make the associations without being told, so this disclosure wouldn't be much of a change in terms of user privacy. If there are Checkusers who can't be trusted - and it appears that this might be the case - then that is a problem in itself, and needs to be dealt with separately. If an editor, for privacy reasons, needed an account that Checkusers couldn't identify, they would already have to go to extraordinary lengths to separate the accounts. I suppose that, in such cases, if the person did go to such lengths, and wanted to notify only ArbCom instead of Checkusers as a whole, or not notify anyone about the link, that could be an acceptable addition to the proposal, perhaps in the form of a general "ArbCom can make exceptions to this policy in extraordinary cases; if you need an sockpuppet that isn't known to checkusers, please contact the ArbCom separately." That situation should be rare enough that dealing with each case individually wouldn't be too much work. I'm not sure that any editor here falls into that category, or in fact any legitimate editor in Wikipedia as a whole. The possibility should be included however, for the sake of completeness and in order to make the proposal more palatable. By adding this, the proposal won't forbid any legitimate use of a sockpuppet except for a completely unidentified one, even if the user doesn't want to reveal links between the accounts, such an arrangement could still be arranged via ArbCom exceptions. However, while making things only a bit more difficult for legitimate users, it would make illegitimate sockpuppetry far more difficult, especially when the intention is to keep bad behavior from the editor's image.
 * My largest concern with the policy is not with privacy, but with approval. The proposal now is that the list be made so that approval isn't necessary, but the idea, and indeed the title, seems to indicate that this will change. If it does, will it turn into a situation where few are accepted, or even a situation where the group simply rejects and bans all of the socks in order to lessen the amount of work? We need to make clear what the purpose of the list is, and how it is expected to be used. If there is to be approval, we need to have a clear system for it. On the other hand, simply approving everyone would probably be a bad idea, as that would still allow for cases of hiding bad behavior. It might be difficult to come up with this, as there are so many different use cases.
 * On the whole, however, this idea seems the best and most workable. --Philosophus T 04:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing this proposal from being about approval into being about registering turns it from being a brake on socking into an accelerator of socking. I'm suggesting a mechanism to brake. You are claiming a minor modification that in fact achieves the opposite. You are suggesting, "yes, let us step on the peddle - just the other peddle." That is no minor modification. It is the opposite of my proposal. WAS 4.250 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you came to that impression from my comment. I wrote: "We need to make clear what the purpose of the list is, and how it is expected to be used. If there is to be approval, we need to have a clear system for it. On the other hand, simply approving everyone would probably be a bad idea, as that would still allow for cases of hiding bad behavior." We do need approval, yes, but we need a clear system for it so that CheckUsers don't just accept or reject everyone without any consideration. --Philosophus T 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)