Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 7

Highly restrictive policy on second accounts?
"The general rule is: one editor, one account."

But no, it doesn't appear to be the general rule at all. Given the amount of mistrust caused by sock puppetry, and the amount of time and effort that goes into policing the current loose approach to multiple accounts, can someone tell me why WP should not institute a much stricter policy on multiple accounts? Why, for example, is it not highly exceptional to have more than one account? Why should there not be a requirement to seek permission from a CU or Oversight person to operate a second account, for one of a narrow set of reasons?

Most of the so-called legitimate reasons given in the policy are laughable. Why is this privileged by being in the lead: "For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Forgive my cynicism, but how often does this occur?

Does Reason No. 1 still pertain?

Is Reason No.2 really justifiable? If a user "with a recognized expertise in one field" can't cope with the association of their contributions in another field, well ... that's just too bad, I say.

Reason No. 3: Don't let people know your WP ID in the first place. Reason no. 4: I don't understand it. Tony  (talk)  13:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the current policy is written somewhat speculatively. It should probably focus more on what alternate accounts are NOT to be used for than what they CAN be used for. It's a mistake to try to write an exhaustive list of the permitted uses of alternate accounts, since the permitted uses are never the ones that cause trouble.  As long as alternative accounts aren't used abusively, who's going to care?  Somebody could have 12 different accounts for twelve different areas of the wiki if they wanted to, but as long as they were all used to contribute civilly and productively, and never contributed to the same discussions, nobody would bother to CheckUser them.  It's the abusive sockpuppets that are the problem, and that's what this policy should be aimed at.  I personally have an openly declared alternative account, which I have used in the past when logging on from internet cafes, WiFi spots, or other locations I don't feel are secure.  We don't need to restrict people from having multiple accounts, we need to restrict them from ABUSING those multiple accounts.--Aervanath (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find myself in the somewhat astonishing position of agreeing with Tony. Yesterday Giano, today Tony.. *peers out window, notices lack of horsemen*. Anyway, we do need to be a lot more strict about one person-one account. I could see an IAR exception for particularly prominent Wikipedians (Arbcom e.g.) who would like to be able to edit in peace; note the usual brief flurries of interest whenever Jimbo actually touches mainspace. Beyond that? No, there's really no excuse for alternate accounts (or indeed creating a new account to get away from a populated block log, for example); all users should stand by their reputations. → ROUX   ₪  17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you're aiming at non-declared alternate accounts here; if the accounts are publicly linked, there shouldn't be a problem.--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as some may have accounts for huggling, for AWB'ing, etc. –xenotalk 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, I should have been more clear. I mean, I have one of those (though don't use it anymore, because people got their knickers in a twist about it for some bizarre reason). → ROUX   ₪  17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are really just a small number of reasons in which multiple accounts may be problematic. These include:
 * 1) One person using two or more accounts to pose as multiple people and participate in a discussion, especially one on deletion. For example, if an article is put up for deletion, and one person comes by with two or more accounts arguing it should be kept, this distorts the "voting" process. Or even if there is just a discussion that has been formed on whether or not to include something within an article, consensus can be distorted this way.
 * 2) One person using multiple accounts to engage in an edit war. The 3RR guideline states that the 3 edits is limited to each person, not each account. When a hot edit war is in place, accusations of sock puppetry do sometimes fly.
 * 3) Creating articles with one account then marking them as patrolled with another
 * 4) Use of a separate account specifically for disruptive editing, such as vandalism. Some well-established editors may create accounts to experimentally vandalize, commit planned vandalism (such as waiting for a new account to become autoconfirmed, then moving a page), or to engage in POV editing. The same people may be hiding this from a well-respected account they have.
 * 5) Creating an article with one account, then proposing it for deletion with another, just to watch how an AfD on the topic will turn out (see WP:POINT).

People may have their own reasons for having multiple accounts, not addressed at all. Provided that one is editing in good faith, there should be no rule against what they are doing. Hellno2 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to list all of the reasons using multiple account would be acceptable. Why not just agree on those reasons that it would not be acceptable? Chillum  18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what the above 5 are - unacceptable reasons. If one has 100 separate accounts all used for editing in good faith, Wikipedia has not been harmed, and taking action against this would not be helpful. This policy is basically one not against having multiple accounts. It is against disruptive behavior. Hellno2 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not agree with you more Hellno2. Chillum  19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh and Tony, I have created a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. It was very enlightening, I suggest you try it out sometime. Chillum  19:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Mr Chillum, that was such a brave action. Are you per chance one of the Cheshire Chillums (we may be related)? Please do try to understand that people like myself enjoy a little harmless joie de vivre now and then. Now, do excuse me I must find Monsieur Roux, I'm sure he was once the sous-pastry chef at Scrotum Towers in the happy days before the war. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that operating a second account should be regarded as an automatic right, given the amount of trouble caused by improper use. The current system is an invitation to skullduggery. Is there any reason that CU/Oversight application should not have to be made to start one? And is there not scope to tighten up the wording of this policy so that it's not quite so inviting? Tony   (talk)  05:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current policy is much stricter than prior iterations, which among other things, allowed people to have multiple undeclared admin accounts. We've put a stop to most of that, but I'm not sure how much tighter the wording can get now, without negatively impacting people who have relied on the prior versions.  Also, given the rampant leaks from the Arb-l mailing list, many people would not accept filing with a mailing list as a requirement.  Otherwise, yes sockpuppetry is a pervasive problem that we barely have any control over.  MBisanz  talk 09:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that people should be allowed to rely on prior versions. There is no need for undeclared socking except in truly exigent circumstances. The very concept of 'sanctioned' socking runs entirely counter to the ideals of openness, transparency, and trust that are needed in any project like this. → ROUX   ₪  09:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roux. Response to Matthew: very strict, please. We should all be sick of ID deception: it weakens the fabric of the community, and allows some people to gain significantly unfair advantage. We don't need to suck up the time of admins, to endure resignations from ArbCom and, recently, of a crat. We lurch from scandal to scadnal.
 * At the minor expense of ruling out frivolous or trivial uses (sorry to be a fun-spoiler), there is much to be gained by restricting multiple accounts to those that are explicity justified by users, applied for by email to a CU/Oversight, and put on a secure list. I think the time has come to bite the bullet on this: the RFCs where people double vote? Hello? If we have strict rules about behaviour, about voting, about canvassing, about 3RR, and have decided that blocks are permanently recorded for a user, why do we incite people to game the system via multiple accounts? Give me a block record, and I'll start a new account (it's countenanced!); whether block records should be permanent is another issue; I object to the official encouragement to start a new account to gain advantage over others. The balance of proof should be firmly shifted onto the user who wants to apply for a second account—not the current loose imprimatur I see overleaf. Make admins' jobs simpler, please. Make all our jobs simpler. Tony   (talk)  14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but how would you handle things like User_talk:Utgard_Loki and User talk:Catherine de Burgh, both of which were undeclared alt accounts whose blocking led to epic amounts of drama. I'm probably the most supportive person of strict enforcement, I've blocked more socks than most admins and taken on high profile cases like this, where the community felt that blocking people for socking was wrong.  If the community isn't 100% against blocking abusive alt accounts, I don't see how the policy can be tightened.  It would just be setting more admins up for failure who block per policy and then get lashed to the pole at ANI.  MBisanz  talk 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the community is solidly against questionable alt accounts and the entitlement to have them, unless you count the sock operators who are gaming the system anyway. Most of that lashing comes from a small group who are just being contrary, stirring up drama, or bringing up grudges against specific admins, if not operating entirely in bad faith.  There are certainly some legitimate reasons to want alt accounts, but even there actually sanctioning them is not necessarily the solution.  Separating a real world private life from one or more online presences in forums where reputation and continuity are important is a pressing issue everywhere on the net, and having unfettered disposable identities is not a good way to solve it.  You'll never find 100% approval for anything anywhere in the world.  If you let the vocal minority prevail on this one it just guarantees trouble for the rest of us.Wikidemon (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going against the wishes of a few people I know who have used an alt account for fun or otherwise and would regard me as a perverse party-pooper—but that doesn't bother me. It's time to sacrifice the vast majority of undisclosed alt accounts by securely registering the remainder on the basis of a narrow set of purposes that would be set out in this policy, shifting the burden of justification onto the user. If the solid community disapproval weren't contradicted in the first place by the policy overleaf, we'd have been saved what Matthew refers to as "epic amounts of drama". We spend huge resources policing this social problem at the wrong point, after the horse has bolted. A more significant issue would arise upon a change to the policy: compliance by existing operators of covert alt accounts. But that should not be seen as an incontrovertible barrier, I think. Tony   (talk)  18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm going to lay out four prior actual cases that I consider "tough" and I'd like to see how you think they should ideally be handled (feel free to inline).  MBisanz  talk 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:U is an admin used an undisclosed account to edit war past 3RR a year ago, someone made the connection today between the two accounts.
 * User:G is a user who used an undisclosed alt account to run for arbcom, but the connection was made before voting began.
 * User:N is a crat who used an undisclosed alt account to create articles for hire from for-profit companies.
 * User:A is an admin who acquired a second admin account from a Foundation employee and used it to vote on an AFD about herself.
 * I know you directed that at Tony1, but my response: 1) indef on the sock, significant block (yes, punishment) for the main account, possible desysopping for the admin in question, permanent ban for that admin on using any alternate accounts for any reason; actions of alternate accounts must be treated as if made by the main account, and must be looked at more severely if they are anti-policy actions such as violating 3RR. 2) Not allowed to run for Arbcom, ever. Block alternate account. Did User:G have a history under the main account that would have precluded running, or a successful run? 3) Permanently ban all of them. I know the case you mean, and there is nothing about it that's acceptable. 4) I'm pretty certain I know who that is, but the admin should be desysopped with prejudice, and the Foundation employee should be given a lecture on where and how Foundation accounts may be used. → ROUX   ₪  00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment from the peanut gallery (I'm not an admin): U - report is stale so no sanction. However, RfC or some other process on whether to de-sysop in light of revelations, but also considering subsequent behavior.  Ask to come clean on any other undisclosed socking, and keep an eye on the editor.  G - de-sysop and ban from any further meta activity; though pardon if good behavior for 1-2 years after event.  N - tell Jimbo and let Jimbo have his way.  A - same (except tell Godwin or the board).  If they don't take action, consider de-sysop but brace for huge drama-fest.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another issue that would have to be addressed is how can you really tell if a newly registered account belongs to someone who already has one? Increased policing would require a checkuser inquiry to be performed on all new accounts, which would then be compared with all previous ones. And besides, there would be no way to determine if someone whose IP address matches is the same person or just another person who uses the same computer or hotspot. Even if asked, there is no way of knowing if the person is telling the truth. Other signs of sock puppetry are also quite subtle; a total stranger could theoretically have an edit history that gives the appearance of being the same person. Hellno2 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely support an automated checkuser process on all new (and frankly all current) accounts. There is nothing in WMF privacy policy that prevents fishing; that is a solely enwiki concept. Ideally, such a process would automatically check new accounts against known socks and currently blocked users. Should it return a match of a certain confidence, the program would notify CheckUsers who would then manually compare the data. Any auto-checks at less than that would be automatically scrubbed from the system permanently, and ideally we would suddenly see a drastic reduction in both socking and block evasion as we nip them in the bud rather than being reactionary. → ROUX   ₪  00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current process of registering a username is very easy, and it can take under a minute. Anytime you try to make an IP edit, you are prompted with the message " If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address and be provided with many other benefits," which links to WP:WHY. Changing this process would seem very unfriendly and discouraging. It would also remove the anonymity, which attracts many. Hellno2 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support requiring “secret alternative accounts must seek permission from a local checkuser”. Checkuser access seems to be acceptably tight, and I would accept nothing less.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that a significant underlying source of the problem is the encouragement we give to new users to register new accounts. Sock puppetry should be cut, in favour of encouraging a formal Changing username.  Also, the templates slapped on alleged inappropriate usernames along with an indef block is very persuasive in encouraging new (and dubious!) users to engage in using secret alternative accounts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly in favour of the idea of "one editor, one account". There's no real reason to have more than one user name; after all, we don't generally tolerate such practises in the "real world". (Note that I'm not suggesting we have to use real-world names here, just that we should pick one handle and stick with it.) If there is a desire for an alternate login - say for a bot or an on-the-road-unsecure-access-point - it should be clearly identified in the user name as such. (For example, "Ckatz-BOT" or "Ckatz-ALT_ACCOUNT".) The developers would know better, but perhaps there might even be a way to modify the software to have such names as sub-accounts of the main account. --Ckatz chat spy  04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with enforcing this is that it would quickly overwhelm the CheckUsers; how many new accounts are opened every day? CheckUsers need to perform at least 2 queries to verify any sockpuppets: one to get the IP addresses from which the username has logged on, and then one query for each of the IP addresses, to retrieve the list of usernames which have logged on from that IP address.  If you want to overwhelm the CheckUsers and Stewards with 24-7 overload, this is the way to go.  However, if you only want to stop ABUSIVE sockpuppetry, then there's no need for this proposal.--Aervanath (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which would be why I suggested a programmatic solution. → ROUX   ₪  04:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but that would still create a lot of work for the CheckUsers: how many IPs are blocked because they're used by a school? Any new accounts coming through those IPs would have to be vetted by the CheckUsers. For another example, the ENTIRE COUNTRY of Qatar only uses 2 separate IP addresses. There are many other situations like this, all of which would have to be verified by CheckUsers, when by and large most of these accounts are not creating problems. This proposal wouldn't actually do anything more to stop abusive sockpuppetry, since abusive sockpuppetry is already forbidden.  This is akin to the U.S. internment of all Japanese during World War II: sure, some of them WERE probably spies, but the vast majority weren't.--Aervanath (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of things we could do short of checkuser... the civil libertarian in me says that's the online equivalent of a strip search. One is by giving some preference to confirmed (but anonymous) identities - a gold star, eligibility for certain tools, full access, etc.  Another might be a pledge that one will not sockpuppet.  A third would be a routine question for anyone seeking adminship.  We could be more liberal with granting checkuser requets, and also request a pledge there - any editor accused (in good faith and with plausible grounds) of sockpuppetry could be asked to pledge that this is not the case.  Or if they have done it, they could come clean and have a degree of amnesty in exchange for going straight.  These are just some random ideas, not a proposal.  The hardcore people who are here to game the system for whatever reason won't be dissuaded, but it could get rid of the other 90%, which is just pointless drama and playground antics.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of closing this loophole; one person, one account makes perfect sense to me. Yes, Giano and Bishonen operate harmless and humorous sock accounts. In most cases, however, operation of two accounts at a single period in time is deceptive and disruptive. We ought to be unequivocal about this: No editor may use multiple undeclared accounts simultaneously for any reason. No exceptions for people who have received permission from anyone, whether ArbCom, checkusers, oversighters, rollbackers or the illustrious autoconfirmed. This shouldn't be seen to prohibit clean start accounts; that's a loophole we should leave open, and the policy already provides that the break must be complete. Nathan  T 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Before the baby is tossed with the bathwater ... there are some valid reasons to have an alt account and any official policies won't stop those who intend to abuse the community so IMHO focus should be on the behaviours. Two instances I'm aware of is; (i) editors who are being wikihounded using alt accounts to edit in peace from those who are harassing them and (ii) editors who may have a culturally taboo interests like LGBT, BDSM, kink, fetish, or even a "dorky" interest that they wish to keep separate from their established account or they see how people who have similar interests have been vilified so wish to start a "mainstream" account. In either case as long as they aren't disruption or otherwise gaming things I'm not sure I see any problem. Gone are the days of innocence and anonymity and we should be keen to acknowledge that exceptionally violent people use wikipedia and have targeted other editors. Let's avoid victimizing good wikipedians. -- Banj e  b oi   08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "…editors who may have a culturally taboo interests like LGBT, BDSM, kink, fetish…"
 * This begs the question of whether one of Wikipedia's missions is to enable people to promote "culturally taboo" interests without being discovered. Even granting that this might be desirable - and it is by no means obvious - this would seem to fall outside the mission of an encyclopedia. Personally, if all the contributors here to explore "fetish[es]" and the like would quit, I think that would be a good thing for and ultimately increase the credibility of the project. The least we can ask is for them to quit sockpuppeting to do it.24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors that Banjeboi was referring to, I've been through this whole thing a number of times. At times, I've been one of the most active transgender editors on the english WP, and have been the first point of reference for LGB editors who needed more information on specific transgender issues. I also have another account, which I've used to edit in my professionally qualified field and other subjects unrelated to transgender issues. The other account is traceable to my real identity, and I intend to keep it that way because it provides me with credibility in content disputes. I do not intend to use that account to edit transgender subjects at this time, although there is a possibility that I will be out enough sometime in the next few years that it won't matter. I will not out myself on your terms, I will do so on my terms. A ban on multiple accounts would probably mean that I'd just quit entirely in disgust. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia's “first point of reference” for a subject is a pseudonym writing in a field in which he/she is admittedly not qualified, and whose opinions about would sully his/her reputation if associated with his/her real life identity…and this is a good thing that Wikipedia should strive to maintain?24.22.141.252 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As if to prove the point ... 24.22.141.252 is in fact a sock of a banned user - Clayton, I believe - and has told to stop harassing me. -- Banj e  b oi   23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is unenforceable; and it is pointless. Both fall on the same difficulties; if you have a dozen accounts, and they don't help each other out on editwars, and they don't vote in the same polls, who will ever know? And what reason will anybody have to care? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The valid reasons for sock puppeting are so few and far between that it's better to leave those to IAR, the usual flexibility in enforcement, or perhaps explicit requests to checkusers to authorize specific alternate accounts for specific causes. Benjiboi presents the traditional reason for the exemption. But that is a very narrow circumstance, and as User:Pmanderson points out, if they are truly separate they'll never be discovered. Pretty much any instance in which a sock is detectable it is inappropriate. The multiple account exemption has been abused too often. Joke accounts like Bishzilla are unnecessary and have been used in ways that don't help the project. We also have the matter of paid editors, who may wish to keep one acocount clean while they do their paid work with a hidden account. The standard should be "one editor one account".    Will Beback    talk    18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the rule is to make them undetectable by not using them harmfully. I strongly oppose passing busy-body policies; this is not an exercise in legislation, nor is it any help to get rid of Bishzilla.
 * Paid editors are a perfect example of why this will not work: if Editor A is paid to edit for Company X, and makes a sock-puppet for it, we will eventually block the sockpuppet for POV disruption. But how will we ever know who the puppeteer is, to do CU on? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think getting rid of Bishzilla will indeed improve the project. Creating alternate accounts for purposes of drama is not helpful to the project. As for the paid editing, would it be OK for an editor to use a "clean" account to advocate for paid editing, and then use an alternate account to make paid edits? I don't think it should be. Right now the policy says:
 * In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings.[2]
 * It'd be reasonable to extend that to all administrative proceedings, such as RfAs and AfDs.   Will Beback    talk    20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once we accepted paid editing, if we did, having a "paid editing" account would be harmless. While we don't, the paid account will consist of single-purpose spam, and is easy to block - because it's a second account. This is a non-problem.


 * The provision you quote is silly, and I dispute it. (And I support BishZilla; what is harmful to the project is not having a sense of humor.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What actual value does Bishzilla bring to the project?   Will Beback    talk    21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The same value Aristophanes brought to Athens; encouraging certain forms of stupidity to be laughed away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was an alternate account required? Bishonen is quite capable of using funny voices wiht a single account, or using an alternate signature if a different personna is desired for effect. That account wasn't used simply for humor, but also for editing articles. Again, I don't see any reason that an alternate account was needed. And running Catherine de Burgh for ArbCom was abusive of the community. These kinds of drama-accounts should not be allowed at all.   Will Beback    talk    21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the drama, vote against the candidate; if you think it seriously disruptive, go to ArbCom. We already have rules for that: The use of alternative accounts for deliberate policy violations or disruption specifically is proscribed But the idea that Bishonen must make her points using the tools we, on rhis obscure policy page, approve, is excessive; throwing out all alternate accounts is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. (The fact that this proscription will only succeed with those who admit they are double-editing, by word or behavior, just makes this worse; we don't need policies which inconvenience the honest and catch the stupid.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an obscure policy page. Violations of this policy probably result in thousands of blocks a year, sceond only to vandalism. The ArbCom does not set policy, we do, here. I don't think there is any "baby" involved. Bishonen will not be inconvenienced by the elimination of a loophole that allows a silly, pointless account used only for drama. If Bishonen feels that this is an important loophole then she can come here herself, using her regular account, and defend it. So far her only involvement has been to skirt the policy by using Bishzilla to add images to this thread, so she's aware of this discussion. Getting back to the essential point here, socks are a tremendous disruption to Wikipedia. Allowing a a few run by favored editors serves to legitimize the countless problem socks. The tightening of this policy would improve the project, and all that might be lost of value are two dubious drama accounts. If that is the only objection to change then we can make can make an exception for those.   Will Beback    talk    22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite right that ArbCom does not set policy. You are quite mistaken that "we" set policy here. Except for 5P, policy on Wikipedia is nothing more than documentation of such standards that have gained consensus by the community. See the definition at WP:PG. When a particular practice becomes accepted on Wikipedia, that is the time to document it here. Neither pronouncements from ArbCom, nor our current deliberations fit that bill. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No purpose has been shown for this, except rule-making for its own sweet sake. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why even make the exception? They serve no purpose whatsoever, and in the case of Bishzilla actively serve to foment disruption. Tighten the policy to 'no alt accounts not disclosed in public, period' and be done with it. → ROUX   ₪  22:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused? Is there a concern with disclosed alt. account?  I thought the issue here was secret alt. accounts.  Is Bishonen openly operating secret alt. accounts???  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very strongly oppose per WP:CREEP: this is precisely described: when a well-meaning user thinks "This page would be better if everyone were supposed to do this", I believe in the good intentions of the proponents, by and large, but no purpose has been shown for this unenforceable and pointless restriction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anderson says above: "having a 'paid editing' account would be harmless". I can't disagree more strongly. Paid editing is just the activity we need to keep tabs on, for reasons of POV and COI, not to mention the right of the community to know what is going on when money changes hands – who, where, why. Paid editing is just one emerging phenomenon that requires one-editor-one-account as a norm. Anderson, there's nothing stopping a genuine request to whoever is charged with keeping a secure log of alt accounts. But to let this pass by without updating rules that were made for relatively innocent times is to endorse a Wild West approach, and who wants that? Tony   (talk)  02:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a misquotation. To unpack what I said slightly:  If we changed policy to allow paid editing (which I oppose, and don't think likely to happen) then having a 'paid editing' account (which would then be legitimate) would be harmless. Please at least read the rest of the sentence in which the words you attack occur. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't read your statement as depending on whether paid editing is allowed or not allowed. Either way, it needs to be open, and alt accounts are an invitation to deceive. Tony   (talk)  15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if used properly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I admire your trust in human nature; but let's be practical. Far too much admin time and nervous energy, not to mention that of CUs, goes into a time-sink dealing with misuse. I see trivial sacrifices by a small number of users for the greater good—a change in the culture that will consign ID deception to the hard core of deceivers who think they won't be caught. I hope to win your agreement that this is a case where closer regulation is required. I suspect that not being an admin, you're only distantly aware of the amount of deception they have to deal with. Few other sites allow or are so encouraging of alt accounts, with good reason.  Tony   (talk)  17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be practical?!? Unless an alt account is abused, there is no way to tell it exists. How is it practical to propose a rule that cannot possibly be enforced, in order to address a problem which is already covered by existing policy? This is the "practicality" of Diocletian and of Robespierre, and of the Women's Christian Temperance Union: if something's nasty, pass a rule against it, and it will go away. Yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know User:Bishzilla exists. I do not see anywhere on the user page where it is identified as an alt account. Ditto for User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh, who saw fit to edit this page and is thus particiapting in discussions of policy, a direct violation of this policy.    Will Beback    talk    17:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A misguided policy, based on a careless expression by ArbCom (this was not what the Privatemusings case was about). If you think I am wrong about that, take Bish** to ArbCom; your evidence is clear - although you may have some difficulty convincing anybody not engaged in feud that this edit discusses policy - and Bishonen has just filed a perfect venue for all sorts of issues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A feud? Hardly. I've had very little contact with either of Bishonen's accounts. This isn't personal - please don't make it so.   Will Beback    talk    20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You think it's OK for undisclosed socks to edit policy pages? I don't beleive that's the general view of the community. In any case, at your suggestion I've added a comment to the RFAR requesting that the ArbCom address this account's status if they take up the case. However, as I wrote above, the ArbCom doesn't make policy.   Will Beback    talk    19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it is OK; this dread Undisclosed Alt Accounts are Coming to Take Us Over bogeyman is smoke and mirrors in the service of some grievance or other. What matters is arguments, not signatures. As for ArbCom, I shall express myself further there.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, to belabor the obvious, one individual voting two accounts to make his opinion appear popular, or to set up a straw man to fight, or any such abuse is already prohibited. Enough is enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Given that it was disclosed at the outset - the Deleted revision of User:Bishzilla (as of 25 October 2006, at 03:11) by Bishzilla states: This is an alternative account of Bishonen. and given that Bishonen had her Admin rights transferred to Bishzilla for some time, I'm thinking you'd have to be fairly dense indeed to not know Bishzilla is Bishonen. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no current disclosure anywhere on the user's pages. A new user would have no way of knowing that the two accounts are linked. The implication that if I created a sock account, disclosed the relationship on the user page, and then deleted the page that I am operating a fully disclosed alternate account appears to me to be an inappropriate standard for disclosure.   Will Beback    talk    20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except I didn't imply that. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. What do you believe is a reasonable standard for public disclosing of alternate accounts?   Will Beback    talk    22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow the RfAR pages closely so I missed another recent sock scandal: Geogre/Utgard Loki. In that case an apparently well-meaning admin thought it would be wise and acceptable to use an undisclosed alternate account for years, eventually using both accounts to participate in discussions and other problematic behaviors. In the end it was neither wise nor acceptable. Geogre is now de-sysopped and there doesn't seem to have been any net benefit to the use of the sock. Eliminating the loophole would make situations like this less likely.   Will Beback    talk    09:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And how do you know about that? Because ArbCom is presently dealing with it; the point at issue is whether he used the two accounts on the same issues, which we already forbid. Would this proposal have been applied earlier if it had been in force? Probably not; no one reasonable (and I regret seeing Durova unreasonable) cared. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I become untagged? How do I know who tagged me and why?
Please someone answer this. I've been editing a talkpage of a controversive article on climate change denial and minutes later I was tagged. Soon a few editors (with surprisingly similar contribution histories) ganged up to delete the thread I just started. It was titled "this article could become neutral". There I gave some editorial ideas they didn't like. So what they did was not discussing with me but deleting a thread! Because someone tagged me, they felt entitled to delete my thread from discussion.

Contacting them on talkpages didn't help. Although KimDabelsteinPetersen changed his strategy by claiming my comment includes a private opinion which makes it a soapbox with no sources. So I've found a few sources and reverted my thread back to article's talkpage thinking now everything was going to be OK. But I was wrong. Kim's friend Aunt Entropy deleted my comment again without any explaination. I asked why did he/she do that on users talkpage but he/she simply deleted it!

Please someone tell me how can I check who tagged me and how can I become untagged. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be one of the abuse filters. So, no clue exactly how it happened, the filter isn't publicly viewable.  lifebaka++ 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What You mean "abuse filter"? Is there any way I can get rid of this tag? It's strange that it only appears on my attemts to edit 1 article's talkpage but not on other subjects78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we re-examine these four reasons for operating an alt account?
Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:


 * 1) Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.  Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account.
 * 2) Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.
 * 3) A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area.
 * 4) An editor might use an openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks to simplify the organization of such tasks.


 * (1) Just checking that this is still the case for public computers. I'm unhappy about making an explicit reason that appears to be esoteric or rarely applicable.
 * (2) I cannot imagine why recognised expertise in one field might cause someone to wish not to be associated with another field. Can someone provide an example? I am primed not to accept it already, and think that No. 2 should be binned. Who are these easily embarrassed experts?
 * (3) As for No. 1, I'm wondering whether this one is so rare as to be handled conveniently by application to have the undeclared alt account, and its secure listing.
 * (4) Maintenance tasks? Please explain why an alt account would ever be necessary. Tony   (talk)  12:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that yes, (1) is still very applicable. Particularly for people with non-private access tools like checkuser it is very risky to log into their accounts in places such as public libraries or airport wireless systems, where it may actually be part of the system to log their passwords.  (2) I never understood.  (3) I kind of understand, but wish it could be written better. (4) covers things like bot accounts and alternate accounts for huggle/api queries.   MBisanz  talk 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) obviously necessary for users with privileged access (moreso for functionaries, but admins as well) 2/3) I think Benjiboi provided some examples above 4) is necessary if one does a lot of automation, but wants to segregate it somehow. I use one account for huggling (though inactive), one for AWB, and two bots. All declared though. –xenotalk 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think #1 and #4, as disclosed alternative accounts, are perfectly OK, and should not be mixed up with #2 & #3, which are concerned with undisclosed alternative accounts. Mixing these two different situations has confused this discussion.


 * 1) 2 (especially) and #3 seem completely reasonable to me, even if not well worded. An "expert", based on any claim, should not be editing within their expertise without making a clear WP:COI disclosure.  Such a disclosure, if clear, will explicitly or effectively identify the contributor.  (We want to encourage such contributors!)  A credentialed expert with a reputation of importance who has edited within his expertise will thus have disclosed his identity.  Such an editor would therefore be hesitant to voice opinion on other matters (such as Wikipedia policy), for fear of making a fool of himself.  If this contributor were forced to only voice opinions signed to his real identity, it would discourage such contributions, and this would lead to a systematic bias: credentialed people (self-)constrained, and casual web browsers more effectively holding the floor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
I ask now for in-principle consensus to make the open declaration of alt accounts (cross-referenced from each of the multiple accounts) the default requirement unless certain conditions are met. Tony  (talk)  12:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support Tony   (talk)  12:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support If folks have alternate accounts they should disclose them, unless they meet the specified conditions. This is as enforceable as many of WP's policies.   Will Beback    talk    17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this pretty much what the policy already says? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. What the policy says is that alt accounts (disclosed or not) should not be used for disruption, which is what it needs to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Tony, what would the conditions be? Sorry if this has been answered already. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Slim (and Cla), fair point: I wanted to establish in-principle support for a default requirement, which would not lead per se to changes, but merely set us on the next stage, of determining what those requirements should be. Do you think they should be treated together? I'm concerned that the next stage would need more fine-grained discussion, and that the baby might be thrown out if it's all put into one proposal. I think the other way would be to negotiate what those conditions are beforehand. Should I cancel this section? Tony   (talk)  03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, but also ask that the conditions would be. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, the devil will be in the details. I would support a request for such users to to request approval from the checkusers, noting the tight rules of checkuser status, disclosure of information rules, and an expectation that any information disclosed is covered by Privacy policy, and specifically by Checkuser.  I think such requests should be presumed approved unless a response indicates otherwise.   SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2009
 * Support Good basic principle. Durova  288 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but I wouldn't want to close the door to alternate accounts entirely, and I also wouldn't want to see people have to obtain approval from a checkuser. But it would be fair enough to stipulate that, for example, they must never edit on the same pages as their main account, and must allow a certain period (and a long one) to elapse between retiring one account and reactivating another if the same pages are to be edited. It would also be fair enough to require them to tell one person they can trust, perhaps an Arb or a bureaucrat. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a clear policy statement regarding transparency that those new editors Wikipedia is seeking to attract can understand. It supports Wikipedia's values, and sets standards we wish new editors to follow. Alternate accounts for fun-loving editors are fun, but policy is equivocal regarding what is and is not allowable and is confusing to new editors; policy as currently enforced seems to condone the practices of  predominantly  entrenched editors but crack down hard on new or low profile editors.   Any further policy made for exemptions should also be clear and equitably applied. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse may think this is Wikipedia's values, but, fortunately, she is wrong. Meddlesomeness, the declaration that everybody must play exactly how Teacher says, has never been our value; it is opposed to the encyclopedia coming first. Present policy should, of course, be applied equitably; but anybody who doesn't use more than one account to discuss a given issue should be fine. (We do in effect say the converse of this; should we emphasize it?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with a caveat. Alternate accounts should be declared for the sake or transparency.  In exceptional circumstances an editor may request permission to have a secret alternate account.  We'd have to figure out who would receive, consider, approve and confidentially record such requests.  With respect to Lady Catherine de Burgh and her late husband, the Earl of Scrotum, I think jokes accounts are still funny when the owner has been disclosed. A lot of harm has come to editors because the current incarnation of WP:SOCK fails to provide a bright line definition of what is an acceptable use of an alternate account, and what is not.  I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of liberty to avoid those harms. Jehochman Talk 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose in principle, and therefore unconditionally.  Unenforceable, and unnecessary. The only thing we can possibly detect is abuse of undeclared alt accounts, which is already forbidden, and which we slap down routinely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be both unnecessary and unenforceable. However, unnecessary doesn't mean bad, and I don't that writing policy to advise good practice is bad due to enforceability issues.  We should AGF, and expect that users will try to behave impeccably, and this proposed modification would effectively be advice for how to behave impeccably.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary and unenforceable, and you want to do it anyway. Reasoning like that is why WP:CREEP and WP:POL were written: policy should be as brief as possible, and contain only what is necessary. This proposal has nothing to do with good behavior, or good conduct; if you had two accounts, both of them should be equally civil. Please notify me if you ever stand for admin.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary, unenforceable and WP:CREEP are strong points that I accept, but would you consider a paragraph or two on the ethical simultaneous use of alternative accounts if it were written as advice, somewhere else, not as policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Missed this comment. I would agree to this, provided the ethical points made were consensus, which is difficult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will consider upgrading my opposition. The arguments for this evince a malicious pettiness which is appalling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This can only harm good-faith editors. The bad-faith ones are covered already and won't care about policy change anyway. It'll mean that we drive away good-faithers who currently use socks to protect their privacy etc, because otherwise they'll be outed by having to declare openly their reasons for exception. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose People such as myself have a perfect right to be ex-directory if we so chose, and it's nobody others business. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, Giano? Tony   (talk)  10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there is a natural right, among civilized people, to do whatever does no harm to others. To quote Jefferson, this "neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg." This proposed rule does not help the encyclopedia, and is therefore contrary to policy and mischievous.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I Oppose unconditionally, on the grounds that en.wikipedia is required to permit anonymous editing as per Founding principles. Any non- real name, non- passport/social security/birth certificate backed identity should be treated as being a "persona" (a fictional person). I believe that this is de-facto the only rule that can be followed with any certainty. If we try to place restrictions beyond the de-facto rule, we will likely find surprisingly large numbers of people unable to comply. This is still the internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents; welcome! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I placed a photocopy of my passport on-file with the foundation a couple of years ago, I wonder if they still have it?
 * Oppose. I can't see any problem that this would solve better than the current regime, and I can see good-faith users of multiple accounts unnecessarily antagonized. It serves no good purpose to artificially create offenses! Zerotalk 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose mandatory public declarations on common-sense privacy grounds. If instead there was a well-publicized, canonical way to privately declare accounts, and a proposal to strongly recommend linking such accounts and requiring it under certain circumstances such as during a bad-behavior or suspected sockpuppet investigation, I would likely support it. Mandatory public linking of accounts should never be required "after the fact" without taking into consideration the real-world damage it can do, it's far better to abandon or block all but one account.  While public linking may be advised for accounts which aren't segregated for privacy, ultimately, the editor should have the discretion to publicly link or not. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh
 * 1) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"As a general rule, each Wikipedian is allowed only one account."
Because the WP:Update requires credibility and neutrality, I don't want to suggest any particular word change, but if I can do it without getting into trouble, I'd like to suggest that this sentence that was added to the lead section this month is false as stated. The nutshell says (and has said for many months) "The general rule is: one editor, one account." Seems reasonable, especially when you read it in the context of the whole page. But "allowed" one account? How is a second account disallowed? No one has suffered any penalty for creating a second account (unless they were under some sanction). Is there some tweak that would bring this more in line with the wording in the nutshell? - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the "general" bit that will keep us in hot water and continue to waste huge amounts of admins' time. I would prefer in the nutshell statement:

"'Except in explicit circumstances, the rule is: one editor, one account.'"

Tony  (talk)  11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. My own preference would be not to separate the list of exceptions from the "one editor, one account" statement, but that's only a personal preference.  I support the direction you want to go here; it's caused endless trouble for people at RFA who thought they wouldn't get in trouble for operating a second account (either one after the other or simultaneously) and then got the bad news at RFA; people need to be aware sooner than that.  My concern here is semantics; "allowed" sounds like there's a penalty just for creating the second account, which would put all of us in jail. (I've got a WP:doppelganger account squatting on User:Dank55, for instance.)

I think "1 editor 1 account" can still cause many more misunderstandings than it can solve. Traditionally, people have been using multiple accounts as well as editing anonymously, sometimes from multiple locations (thus multiple IPs). "One editor, one account" doesn't really cut it ;-).

Separately, but related, I also disagree with disallowing multiple editors from using one account, but that's a discussion for another day.

(This all due to having observed and experienced how Online_identitys work and interact with each other in practice, over time)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Tony's revised phrasing. Cla68 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. It's a small but significant improvement in clarity.   Will Beback    talk    17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure folks. but can we do better yet? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't so much "one account". Many of us have used clearly disclosed alterante accounts, such as when using potentially insecure public terminals, or when forgetting to log on. The core issue is having only one personna. A while back, a now-banned user with a registered account was alsoi using an IP as if it were an entirely separate account, and insisted that it was unrelated to him, but it later came out that it was him all along. So maybe what we're really trying to get at is that "all editing by a single editor should be traceable to a main account."   Will Beback    talk    02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Tony's phrasing; the existing phrasing is right. The proper phrasing is suggested elsewhere by Newyorkbrad; alt accounts may not be used for deception. This will normally, as in all the instances here, be representing yourself as two independent voices; but an alt account could also be used to conceal a conflict of interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For deception is a slippery concept. We need to define that very precisely, or choose a clearer criteria. Jehochman Talk 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hellno2 suggested five specific examples in the section above; all are deception. I would have no objection to adding all of them immediately afterwards - and adding a sixth, something like: using an alt account to conceal a conflict of interest; for example, creating an alt account to discuss a policy which markedly affect one's edits, while pretending neutrality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also an issue where a user only uses one account in a debate, but uses the secret alternate to pretend to be a third party. eg, User A2 defending a silent User A1 and people thinking that A2 is independent when they are the person in question  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The scenario that Yellow Monkey describes is all the more reason for tightening up. I must say, I'm surprised that not all of those who have to police the crime and try to minimise the damage done to the project are on board. Tony   (talk)  07:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That scenario is reason for prohibiting that abuse, which  would be covered -for example- in the proposed revision immediately above Yellow Monkey's comment, which is (again) all we need to do. Curbing disruptive Crusaders would be a different policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a time last year where one of the arbitrators commented that he couldn't see why the community didn't just prohibit alternate accounts except in specific defined circumstances. Perhaps someone can remember the precise location; I think it occurred last spring.  Tony1's idea is worthwhile as long as it includes a catchall for unanticipated special circumstances, which could be approved in advance on a case by case basis per disclosure to ArbCom.  Durova  293 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should object to any provision of this nature, as it invites ArbCom to decide who can sock (inevitably, this means their friends) and who can't. We need instead clear rules which apply to all. If exceptions are necessary, as they may well be, then they, too, should be stated explicitly and apply to all, not granted or denied according to the whim of unaccountable arbitrators, and they should be honored regardless of how the arbitrators or anyone else feels about them in any given situation.
 * If there is something I don't like about certain recent desysopings as mentioned here, it's that the rules have never been entirely clear, and we've seen - and let's face it, this is what is going on - an attempt to tighten them up by making examples of people, then quite circularly appealing to them by saying, "If this were not the policy already, then User:N wouldn't have been desysoped." However pure the motivation, this is a dishonorable way of doing business, rather like a health insurance company which tells you after twenty years of premiums, "It's true that our policy didn't explicitly disqualify you because you smoke and eat Big Macs, but hey, common sense!" Volunteers contribute lots of time and have a right to clear rules, and a legitimate expectation that the management will scrupulously abide by what are, after all, its own written policies.
 * So, while I'm all in favor of tightening things up, 1) this policy (or any policy) should be clear enough so any contributor can read it and discern immediately and reliably whether he/she is acting within or outside the policy before being put on trial. 2) achieving this also hinders ArbCom or anyone else from exploiting gray zones to distribute or deny favors.24.22.141.252 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I run multiple accounts, all on file with someone who is a current arbitrator. I do this because there is subject matter which I will not edit, or will not edit heavily, under my "main" account. If I were told "sorry, one person, one account," then those subject areas would get less coverage.  If it were just me, that's no big loss to the project.  But multiply that over hundreds or thousands of editors who shy away from certain topics because it would cause them real-world harm if
 * they were known by their friends and others to have an interest in a given subject
 * they were known by their friends to be knowledgeable in a given subject
 * the sum total of edits under all accounts, plus tie-ins between the "main" account and other on- and off-net handles, was enough to reveal more personal information about the editor than the editor felt comfortable with


 * and you wind up with a net loss of good but never-written content due to editor shyness.


 * Imagine this after-work discussion: "oh, I see from your Wikipedia edits you know a lot about Scientology.  Are you a Scientologist?" followed by your anti-Scientology colleagues slowly distancing themselves from you in the coming months.  Or, if you've ever been unfortunate enough to get an Internet stalker, he may see your edits of a town near where you live and say to himself, "Oh, I see you know an awful lot about Shawnee Mission, Kansas.  I wasn't sure if you were the John Arbuckle Scientologist from Topeka or the one from Miami, now I think I know" and start sending you harassing phone calls or worse.
 * Don't discount stalking. At least one highly respected and high-userrights longtime Wikipedian left Wikipedia temporarily due to stalking. In this particular case the potential for unwanted publicity wasn't due to editing but it easily could have been.
 * By far most editors don't have to worry about stalking on- or off-line, but all it takes is a nasty divorce or other unpleasant event to make you a stalking target. Those editors should be able to maintain multiple accounts without having to explain why. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are good reasons, there's no problem if the alt accounts are securely listed. We trust those arbs/CUs. Tony   (talk)  03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Terminology: replace "meat puppetry" with "collusion"
Meat puppet is not a nice term, as many people have pointed out over the ages of Wikipedia. How about replacing it with something better? How about using the term Collusion instead?. Jehochman Talk
 * A definite thought, but it needs an adjective; there are many forms of collusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it need an adjective? My dictionary says: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially to cheat or deceive others." Seems to fit the bill admirably. Tony   (talk)  17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To disambiguate meat puppetry from other forms of collusion; collusion need not involve joining a discussion as an advocate or proxy. We have differentiated usefully; why fudge? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The meat puppetry policy is really only relevant when the individuals the meatpuppets are mimicking are under some kind of remedy or sanction. The section currently speaks more to WP:CANVASS than the actual actions of the puppet. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is different because it may not involve collusion at all. If I post to 25 user talk pages asking for help with a vote, that is canvassing, but it is not collusion because the activity is out in the open where all can see it.  On the other hand, off-wiki canvassing may also be a form of collusion. Jehochman Talk 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is more that the meatpuppet section is mostly toothless in terms of the meatpuppet; it speaks more to the potential meat-master - thus it belongs in WP:CANVASS. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As one who has protested this term, I support its replacement in theory, but Arbcom used it in a June 2009 decision . If you changed the section title here, you'd break its link there. And if it's the section title, you have to keep supporting it in the following text. Novickas (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we can say something like "collusive voting, sometimes called meat-puppetry" (which we should anyway, to explain what we are talking about) in one direction, and use the span-id keyword to preserve the Arbcom link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, anchor may be used for this. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The community gets to Easter-egg Arbcom's verbage? Novickas (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. The community controls policy, not ArbCom. For what it's worth, I agree that "collusion" is a much coherent theory. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think meatpuppetry and collusion are necessarily the same thing, and it's useful to maintain the distinction. IronDuke 18:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the useful distinction then? Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I email you in a moment and ask you to help me revert an article. You write back and say, "Why not just change the article to X?" I agree, and the two of us proceed to change the article to X, reverting against consensus. That's collusion, but there's no meatpuppetry -- neither one of us is the "puppet" of the other. For classic meatpuppetry, I go off-wiki to a chat room and say, "Hey, there's this site called Wikipedia, you should come and make changes to this specific article." The people who come and make that change are then my meatpuppets. Just one example. IronDuke  18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the distinction, but I think it's a difference only in degree, and that both behaviors should be similarly forbidden. If they're stacking votes, edit warring, or whatever, I don't think the nature of their relationship matters&mdash;whether the colluded as equals or whether one is the master and the others are infantrymen. I think MEAT is meant to capture two other sorts of prohibited behavior that are hard to detect:
 * Evasive sockpuppets, which act exactly like true socks even if no one can completely prove it.
 * Apparent canvassing, which might be non-public and not picked up by CANVASS.
 * The second form can be either more like collusion, as in your first example, or more like advertising, as in your second. Either way, I think it's a type of canvassing that we otherwise can't quite reach.
 * Jechochman's main point, which I agree with, is that it's a very derogatory word for users who are genuinely separate beings. How demeaning it is for someone who earnestly happens to agree with another user to be labeled a mere meatpuppet. The word has been overused and abused over the years as well. I think it's best we get rid of it. Collusion is better because whether the charge is true or false, the label does not challenge an editor's autonomy. As for sock-substitute meatpuppetry, I think we can just fold that into the rest of this policy by explaining considerations like the Duck Test and disruptiveness. Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that collusion is not necessarily a bad thing. There are positive and legitimate ways to collude. "Meatpuppetry" refers to a situation where one person is simply doing the bidding of some other. It has a very distinct connotation to it, which would be lost with "collusion." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected: I see "collusion" involves by definition an element of fraud. Still, it isn't quite the same thing as "meatpuppetry." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slim,. I see what you mean about it being a derogatory term -- maybe there could be one to replace it that meant the exact same thing, but wasn't quite so hurtful? IronDuke  23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unpleasant behavior, so of course the words that have come to signify it&mdash;meatpuppet, sockpuppet&mdash; are seen as unpleasant too. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One word we could use that means more or less the same thing as meatpuppet is "sub" and "subbing." You're a sub if you're subbing for another editor, meaning that you're acting as if you were him (a substitute), without proper input of your own. I don't think any other word will catch on, but if people really do want a change, "sub" would probably work. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of "proxy?" That seems to capture a number of elements of meatpuppetry, but is less harsh, and isn't exactly the same as "colluder." IronDuke  02:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Proxy would work too. "Proxying" isn't so good. "Proxy editing" isn't as catchy as "meatpuppetry" or "subbing." Not that being catchy is the main consideration. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like "proxy editing" for the problem, and "proxy" for the person involved. These terms have the advantage over "meat puppetry" that the user so accused has a reasonable chance of understanding what they mean. Many users accused of being "meat puppets" have no idea what it means, they just know it's insulting. rspεεr (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the past I suggested "proxy editing" as a suitable term. It's accurate, but unfortunately it conflates this issue with "open proxies", another type of problem we routinely experience.  Certainly collusion is prohibited at Wikipedia under WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS.  Somebody could probably write an essay, The difference between collusion and collaboration to explain how one is bad and the other is good.  "Subbing" sounds jargony to my.  I think we should try to use words that people can look up in an ordinary dictionary.  If you look up subbing, the meaning in the proposed us is not immediately clear.  If I become too busy to finish a featured article nomination process and I post a note asking for help, and somebody starts subbing for me, there is nothing wrong with that. A necessary element of collusion is secrecy or fraudulent intent.  In common usage subbing has a neutral or positive connotation. Jehochman Talk 10:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * subbing also has a sexual connotation (link semi-safe for work) Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I too like "proxy editing" for the problem, and "proxy" for the person involved. Conflation with "open proxies" is a small problem compared to the insult of being called "meat".  I think the terms are well enough understood for anyone clever enough to edit.  "Collusion" implies too much intent for it to be used in reference to newcomers.  "Subbing" doesn't sound like a real word.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Collusion in its formal definition seems to include presenting hard evidence (wiretaps, emails, and the like), which is hard to come by on WP. "Unreasoned support"? That would cover a lot of cases where editors make reverts in support of each other with no/limited discussion. Novickas (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not bowdlerise the language, here. No, it's not a pretty term, and it offends my inner vegetarian.  But as a term of art here on Wikipedia, the meaning is very clear.  We can debate endlessly about the contours of the policy, and who is a meatpuppet and who is not, but I think it gets the point across.  "Proxy editing" asserts a claim that may simply be false.  Proxies are agents, which implies a formal, binding relationship, whereas meatpuppets may just be independent individuals who are ganging up to support each other or game the system.  Replacing colorful words with more clinical-sounding ones will have the opposite of the intended effect - it will make Wikipedia more wonky, not less, and harder to learn for the newly initiated.Wikidemon (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...on the other hand, I wouldn't mind coining a new term for it. How about shoe-puppet?  Mitten-puppet?  Hand-puppet?  Foot-puppet?  Kitten-puppet?  Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe shorten it to "Muppet" ? Might run into infringement issues there though. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems a lost cause at this point, if Arbcom and Raul654  are comfortable with the term. Maybe someday. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Inform new users to create only one account?
I think we should, either MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount or MediaWiki:Signupend, inform users to create only one account and/or link to WP:SOCK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I also have a question: does Wikipedia ever plan to provide a "single sign-on" so a SINGLE ACCOUNT can be used across all the different language(s) wikipedia versions?. I was shocked to find that if I want to edit an article on the Spanish Wikipedia, I need to create a separate account for that. I thought my "en.wikipedia.org" account would work seamlessly in other wikipedia editions... Thoughts? Comments?. -TIA.

Fcassia (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is blocking meatpuppets counter-productive towards preventing sockpuppetry?
I would imagine, that several times, the following sequence of events occurs: Is there some way to prevent this sequence of events? I believe that some of our major sockpuppets may have come from cases of this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A new user, not yet familiar with our policy, recruits a few real-world friends to support him on some issue.
 * 2) These acounts all get blocked as sockpuppets. (Note - they are not)
 * 3) Thee are now a whole lot of people who were bitten severely, and some of whom may want to "get back" at Wikipedia. We have already told them how (in the block reason). One or more of these people (previously innocent) now creates many sockpuppets.
 * Definitely agree. New users are blocked far too easily (and old users not easily enough).  The worst I think is when a user with a possibly promotional username, doing possible promotion, is told he has been blocked for possible promotion, and advised by the block notice to create a new account.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dividing up the puppets
This debate will persist regardless. We can all think of reasons for someone having several user names without making it obvious: to cover different aspects of involvement on WP - at random nanotechnology and Morris dancing, or if they are an expert in one field and wish to have their ignorance enlighted (add possibilities of choice), and there will be 'some users' who are out to cause disruption. Until we all sign in by holding our installed microchips to the reader (or whatever the latest one-worldist conspiracy theory has) it is impossible to prevent multiple user names (or several people making use of the same IP address, being of varying usefulness and editing capability). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.250.70 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

!Voting
I just saw the "correction" and reversion of the "!Voting" text, and have to confess, I've never heard of this convention before. Would someone kindly explain? Thanks! (I'd search for it myself, but honestly, I'm not even sure what I'd search for in this instance!) —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the more bizarre fictions that Wikipedia subscribes to en masse is the idea that when we vote--RfA, etc--it's not actually a vote. It just looks like one, runs like one, and functions like one... but woe betide anyone who actually calls an object used for digging an object used for--you get the point. So, given the general geekitude of people around here, a convention developed whereby voting is referred to as !voting, the exclamation point meaning 'not'. It's kind of Orwellian; perhaps if we pretend for long enough that there's no voting, there won't be. → ROUX   ₪  21:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured maybe the ! was "not", as it is in so many computer languages, I just didn't know why. Thanks for the explanation.  Oh and remind me to keep my eye on the chocolate ration. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Limit on legitimate alternative accounts
I've been querying a user recently and following the most recent admission they they seem to have 24 "legitimate" socks, which seems ridiculous. Additionally they quite often sign from one account with the signature of another account. I'm quite uncomfortable by all of this but I don't really know where to take it, so thought I'd ask here. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  10:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing all 24 accounts via the wikistalk tool, I am moving this (everything from here down to the horizontal line) to AN/I. It'll take a little time to finish the research. → ROUX   ₪  20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has a little crossover with WP:SIGNATURE. I believe it is disruptive to not link to a userpage (my strong preference for usertalk) when editing a page that is supposed to be signed.  The disruption is not immediate, but manifests later when trying to review, as we do a lot around here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That particular cluster of accounts is, IMHO, a serious problem. I'm on record stating that alternate accounts shouldn't be permitted, period (apart from one account for public/insecure terminals), so I may be biased. But that enormous number guarantees an ability to edit disruptively without scrutiny. Yes yes, AGF, but the parent account has edited disruptively, due to losing an argument about some navboxes. He then went on to announce his intent to deliberately disrupt other navboxes because he couldn't get his way. I certainly don't have the time or interest to look through contribs from what, 24 accounts? And I doubt anyone else does either. Which is basically the problem here. I would support a motion to restrict this user to one account. → ROUX   ₪  15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This does seem problematic. I looked into some of the accounts and found considerable overlap in editing between them: . That shows 181 articles edited by two or more accounts, including 21 edited by three accounts. I concur with Roux that the editor should be asked to use just one account.   Will Beback    talk    19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What about fleshing out the procedure for using legit socks? I'm thinking something like having the sock userpage/user talk redirect to the primary, in the case of a "public terminal" alternate etc. Sort of how in the different wikis where I have an SUL account and edit there (here, fr.wiki, commons, meta, en.wikinews), my Userpage and UT page have soft redirects to my en.wiki pages, because that is where I edit the most and am most likely to see it. For people who have separate accounts for bots etc, this would not work, but most legit socks are for public computers and unsecured connections, so that would make it much easier to get in touch with them and to figure out who they really are. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really nitpicky wikilawyering, but most of the reasons listed under legitimate use of sockpuppets use the wording "an alternate account", which implies that you're only allowed a single alternate. Perhaps that wording should be enhanced in some way to make it clear that one alternate account is acceptable, but multiples are not.  (Or at least that x-amount is acceptable and over that is not.) —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have long been of the opinion that two accounts (one for public use without any additional userrights) should be the maximum that anyone is allowed. I can see my way clear to a third--one's real name--if one is well known or likely to become so, to prevent opportunistic impersonation. → ROUX   ₪  20:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for bot owners. If you have, say, 3 approved bots, you can have an account for each of them, plus your primary, plus another for your legit sock. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about possible bureaucracy creep, but is there any scope for guides like this making a prescription with an exception allowed for cases that are agreed at a noticeboard? Then, stronger wording could be used, while reasonable exceptions could be made on a case by case basis (rather than leaving the wording vague to allow individuals to decide if their case is reasonable). We should not need to spend time debating cases where someone has an extravagant number of accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it better to forbid the use of multiple accounts for people with a history of misuse of such accounts. There are many users using multiple accounts for many reasons, and going through them individually would be hard work for no benefit.  The problem is not with people who don't cause problems.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We could always just strengthen the language and then let IAR sort out the exceptions. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean up
I have cleaned up this policy page to reflect actual practices as they exist today. Please feel free to discuss concerns. Of paramount importance is not to give editors a false sense that they can use multiple accounts to separate their contributions. The general rule is one user, one account. If there are exceptions, the accounts should be linked, or a disclosure should be made to ArbCom to avoid subsequent accusations of sock puppetry and bad reactions by the community. Better safe than sorry! Jehochman Talk 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to the changes, but I'm weak in this area, and since it's just a few hours before the end of the month, I can't rely on the reactions of other editors to give me a sense of whether the changes will be accepted or not. Again, I'm not making a comment one way or the other, but for purposes of the Update, I'll use the last page version before these edits for my monthly diff. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't really comment on current practice, but I do have a concern about the removal of the point about a person having expertise in an area wanting to maintain a separate account. I can certainly see that for someone like, say, a lawyer or a doctor who wants to make it clear that they're editing outside their area of expertise (a tax lawyer editing an article about criminal law, for instance), so that their opinions are not given undue weight.  Apart from that, I think everything looks good. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't give an expert any special weight, especially because we don't verify identity. Somebody can claim to be an expert, but we have no way of knowing if they are. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that. I think we shouldn't give an expert extra weight in light of the fact that their identity is unverified, but I think often we do once it becomes obvious (verified or not) that they are indeed an expert.  It may also be desirable from their standpoint, in that they may not want off-the-cuff opinions to be seen by others who may know their online identity. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with asking exceptional cases to email the Arbitration Committee email list. The Arbitration Committee are not agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, and then there are non-members with access, and so one would be foolish to think that the Wikimedia Privacy policy offered protection.  The appropriate group to advise and disclose a special prvacy concern would be the checkusers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ArbCom supervises the Checkusers, but I take your point. Perhaps that needs to be adjusted to say that they should talk to a Checkuser.  The Checkuser can then figure out how to log the information somewhere so the person is not subsequently blocked for sock puppetry.  Feel free to edit that.  I have to run now. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More grief from alt accounts: why do we allow this to go on?
Wikipedia_talk:AC/N. Tony  (talk)  02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I read this. There's a lot of words to be found.  From the apology, I don't see what Casliber did wrong, just that he didn't do something that he might have.  Volunteers are rarely shot for inaction.  Is there a condensed version of the problem somewhere?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

SOCK clarification
Following up on the discussion at WP:ACN, I've made the following addition to the policy as (I believe) being in line with community expectations: "Editors who hold advanced permissions (administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser) and members or clerks of the Arbitration Committee hold positions of particular community trust. When applying for and at any time while holding such a position, they are required: Failure to do so in a timely manner is grounds for removal from their position of trust by decision of the Arbitration Committee."
 * to disclose any own alternative account that could reasonably be considered inappropriate;
 * to make public, in an appropriate venue, any knowledge they have about such accounts of other active editors, except if the alternative account is already disclosed on the editor's user page.

Thoughts?  Sandstein  09:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with the first point. However I don't think the second point is practical. I can easily imagine a situation where it is not clear if an alternate is being used appropriately and circumstances may change after the person has been informed. One of the trends is to require users of alternate accounts to disclose them to the ArbCom or a checkuser. While this case has tested our faith, I think it's important that the ArbCom members be able to work together to solve problems without having to disclose everything immediately to the community. I think it would be better if it were altered to something like "disclose publicly or to the full ArbCom".   Will Beback    talk    09:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That might work, too, but I'm having problems imagining a specific situation where it would not be appropriate to disclose a suspected inappropriate sock publicly, if the editor at issue declines to do so himself.  Sandstein   09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps real-world privileged information? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clean start, perhaps? Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The key word there is "suspected". The problem in the recent case was that the ArbCom didn't know: only one member knew and he didn't bother to tell anyone else. If he'd shared his knowledge promptly with the rest of the committee then this all would have turned out differently. What if I learn, or suspect, that you are using an alternate account in a legitimate way. Then, unknown to me, you start using the sock illegitimately. Am I still responsible for not having outed you? Does someone informed of an alternate account need to keep checking that the account is being used properly? Perhaps, but that's a heavy burden, especially if failure to do so means loss of trust.   Will Beback    talk    09:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the first point is a bit too motherhoodish to mean much. The second becomes a bit unreasonable, if it demands that information, even partial information, gained in confidence must either be disclosed, breaking the confidence, or prevent the person from seeking a position of trust.  Of course, having confidential information may cause you to have to recuse in some situations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See a few points raised here. As far as individual cases, I think there are cases where editors use alternative accounts for reasons known only to themselves, but that are entirely reasonable, and where Wikipedia has no reason to intrude. With all the vagueness of this policy, I'm certain that concerns in such cases could nevertheless be deemed reasonable by some who would then demand disclosure, unnecessarily. Besides that, I do not see any hope that this policy would be effective, and honestly I am not sure that such an intrusion into the simple knowledge of individuals is healthy. I could be mistaken, in that this principle may prevail in cultures I'm not familiar with, but I suspect it is over-reactive, and over-broad. Mackan79 (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Other reasons it would be a problem here. FT2 (Talk 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Arbs are selected for judgment".  Having judged them for good judgment, let's let them use their good judgment.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative use of puppets

 * Is there consensus for this edit, made about an hour ago? Tony   (talk)  13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, no, not that I can see.  Sandstein   13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you believe current practice is reflected by a statement that "Administrators discovered to be using a second account in an abusive or forbidden manner have been summarily desysopped,"(emph mine), that you can switch accounts but that any active deception would make that invalid, and that "Administrators who failed to disclose past accounts have usually lost their administrator access," given the fact that there was apparently an open secret for months about one admin that we know of, and multiple others state that they have reported other "open secrets," and have gotten no traction with arbcom? Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe these are rather limited cases, especially considering that ArbCom has recently removed admin access for several socking admins. This seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction not supported by the community. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And other socking admins are apparently "open secrets" know to arbiters and multiple admins, and those "Open Secrets" are permitted. Should we codify the "open secret" policy more explicitly? How do we explain that if you are active in a certain clique of admins, you are allowed to Ignore All Rules with the goal of doing whatever the fuck you want? Should that be a coda to IAR? How many Open Secrets are you aware of? (Disclaimer: I am aware of exactly one open secret who utilized the right to vanish his old account and returned to the same topic area, but was not, and will likely never be, an admin!) Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first item in the edit Tony refers to, "Administrators discovered to be using a second account in an abusive or forbidden manner have been summarily desysopped", is clearly factual. I support its restoration, maybe without 'summarily' and rewritten using the active voice.


 * I'd also support the resoration of the second item, "Candidates for adminship should normally disclose any past accounts they have used. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not merely an account. Administrators who failed to disclose past accounts have usually lost their administrator access." but with a little rewording. What's with the "normally"?


 * How about something like "Candidates for adminship or other WP offices should seriously consider disclosing any current or past accounts, since other administrators, with community approval, and the Arbitration Committee have revoked the status of several office-holders who have not disclosed such accounts."


 * I generally dislike the way the policies and guidelines read like the 10 Commandments, no legal history. (I do realize that posting diffs identifies individual editors...but maybe there are some Arbcom motions or findings that aren't overly personal.) If policies and guidelines evolve, couldn't we demonstrate that by offering a little history?


 * The Open Secret issue is troubling but IMO is too new to be included here. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement makes a lot of sense to me. Tony   (talk)  17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading your comments, Tony, it seems to me that you must be focused on those highly active members of the community, who build up their user pages, contribute in community discussions, and presumably are headed for higher positions. What about editors who don't do that, and mostly just write?  There's an odd discrepancy, it seems, in a project that allows (encourages) anonymous and pseudonymous editing, and then would tell people however that whatever IP or pseudonym they pick, they basically have to stick with it indefinitely or be tracked down.  If anonymous editing is allowed, then people should presumably be allowed to feel anonymous about it.  Otherwise we may as well say that to edit Wikipedia you need to provide a credit card and prove your identity in order to be given an account.  Issues with adminship are different, of course; in fact I think that is the real issue, not just the fact that any editor (most of which are not familiar with Wikipedia policy and are not asked to be) happens to use more than one account. Mackan79 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't use an alternative account but I would disagree with "All editors going through RfA, ArbCom, CU, OS, should divulge previous/current alt accounts and socks" in the statement Tony linked. I can think of situations when a previous alternate account should not be declared. e.g. if they originally contributed using their real name, or originally edited on topics tied to them and then they wanted to remove their identity from. If the user has made a WP:CLEANSTART for a legitimate reason I think this right privacy should be respected regardless. I think I can see the argument for always declaring current alt accounts, but not for previous (i.e. inactive) ones. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors have been asked to divulge previous accounts, and I think have occasionally declined to do so. If this needs to be standard, shouldn't it be added to the standard list of questions?  That seems to be the place for this type of thing to be included, rather than just saying here what people should do. Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, requiring public disclosure of information you've previously decided to not reveal is going too far. I will bias away from candidates from interesting backgrounds and tight ethics, and towards people who don't worry about details.
 * I see no problem with asking candidates to make a declaration to a current checkuser (one? all? undecided), under the current formal privacy protection, but asking the checkuser to assert that there is no obvious problem. Is there a checkuser who disagrees?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to ask administrators whether they have used alternate accounts, to pledge they won't, and to ask them if they will disclose and act on any socks they encounter. But I don't think we're ready to put that into policy at this time.  That would work best as a request for a pledge that candidates may either make or not make (or if they're clever politicians, accept with caveats and qualifications).  The community can then decide to endorse them or not.  It's more of a campaign promise for admins that way.  If it turns out that one particular request / pledge gets universal acceptance then we can say it has enough support to be codified as the consensus of the community, i.e. policy.  It would be hard to impose that from the top down.  I hope that makes sense.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense. If this is a good idea, then it is a good question at RFA, and at elections for trusted positions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or not treat admins any differently? Simply require this of everyone. Here is the paragraph at issue, taken from the lead of WP:SOCKPUPPET, with just one word struck: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is generally required that they provide links between the accounts to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification). If public link is not desired, the user should contact a current checkuser in advance to obtain permission for operating multiple, unlinked accounts."

The same word, "generally", would need to be removed from Alternative account notification. Tony  (talk)  03:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why you dismiss all reasons an editor may have for using more than one account? To me it's clear that the reasons for allowing people to edit pseudonymously also support allowing them to limit their account usage in certain ways.  Consider that people are often outed, that certain topics are controversial, and that many people are only willing to edit Wikipedia if their privacy is sufficiently guarded.  If "one person one account" is the policy, then IP editing should be shut down, and all editors should be required to register under their own identity.  This would completely change the nature of Wikipedia, for reasons that I have yet to see explained. Mackan79 (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is allowed to edit anonymously using an alternate account as long as they follow the rules in the WP:SOCK policy. Vote stacking, avoiding scrutiny, block evasion, or any other sort of abusive use of alternate accounts should be strongly frowned upon and not accepted from administrators. Using an alternate account and using an alternate account abusively is not the same thing. Chillum  04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why dangle the temptation there, Chillum? The current lax policy has amply demonstrated what it leads to: deception and an erosion of community trust in itself (and even in ArbCom). Mackan, I don't "dismiss all reasons an editor may have for using more than one account". There is nothing to stop someone from applying to a CU to operate a publicly undisclosed second account, for security or other good reasons. The CUs probably need to store a list that is accessible to their colleague CUs. Such a process would filter out all but the more deserving cases. Otherwise, just link them openly, please; that covers your Internet cafe forgot-to-log-off accidents. Tony   (talk)  04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows for anonymous editing, that goes for everyone. Applying for permission through a CU is not anonymous. The right to edit anonymously is a Foundation issue and is really not up for debate. The problems we have recently seen with admins using alternate accounts abusively were in violation of the current policy so I don't see why a stricter policy would be more effective. The people following the policy aren't the problem, it is the ones violating it. Abusive use of an alternate account is not acceptable but that does not mean the right to edit anonymously should be removed from everyone. Chillum  04:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Tony's proposal at the top and at the middle. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum, removing "generally" from the policy won't stop anyone from editing anonymously (through their IP); nor will it stop a user from emailing a CU for permission to operate a second account without publicly disclosing this fact (hopefully this would be uncommon). The advantage of simply removing "generally" is that it treats admins, non-admins, arbitrators, all, in the same way. Tony   (talk)  06:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To say that anyone who registers more than one account needs to register it with ArbCom would be a huge change, that among other things would need to be prominently displayed on the registration page: "Notice: Wikipedia's policy is to permit the registration of only one account per person in most situations. Any additional accounts may be granted only on appeal to Wikipedia's Arbiration Committee." The appearance to most people, I think, would not be increased accountability but if anything the opposite: is this serious? Many would be suspicious of why a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee needs to evaluate who can use more than one account, and many would wonder who was overseeing such a rule, and how. This is aside from the fact that segregating contributions may often be the prudent thing to do, good for Wikipedia, and avoid personality-based editing. I appreciate the concern, and the effort to address ongoing problems, but I'm simply not convinced this discussion can go forward without a lot more consideration onto what this would mean. Consider perhaps the United States experience with prohibition for one example of problems that can arise with this kind of broad-brush effort, absent clear thought about the practicality and unintended consequences. In fact there is a somewhat diametrically opposed approach: maintain a narrow policy so that it actually reflects common practice, good judgment, and the broad sentiments of the community; then find ways to remove the benefits and incentives for problematic behavior. It's more piecemeal, but I suspect it is a more effective approach. Mackan79 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's CUs, not ArbCom. And only where you want to operate a second account in a clandestine fasion, without disclosing it on both user pages. Anyone could still operate as many accounts as they like, but they would have to be disclosed publicly. Is there a misunderstanding? Tony   (talk)  09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I get it, but I'm saying the problem exists regardless of what group you have to disclose to (I was reading Risker's page earlier and saw something about ArbCom, then I clicked on your user page and saw you oppose ArbCom governance, so perhaps that's a sticky point...). You call it clandestine not to disclose/publicize the full extent of an individual's editing, incidentally, but that assumes it's more so than any editing under a pseudonym.  Often it isn't, and arises from exactly the same interest as pseudonymous editing.  Not to dwell too much, I wonder what standard you would suggest for CU approval?  I see two options: either an effectively substance-less standard which would be granted so long as it wasn't disruptive (in effect, back to square one), or a standard where editors had to plead their concerns in detail and basically it was up to any CU to decide.  Is there something better? Mackan79 (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not practical to ask the ordinary editor to disclose to CUs, or any group, every half witted rationale for having another barely used account. It would be a waste of CU time, it would snow them under. The trust invested in the CUs is not cheap. I think it would only be practical to ask candidates for positions of trust, probably but not necessarily including administrators, to declare that they will not continue to use any other secret alternative account, except where declared to the CUs. Note that "declared to CUs" means that the CUs need not do anything, it shouldn't overload the CUs, it's only really a psychological check.

Also, as per Chillum, it is not desirable to ask new editors to declare anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, that same rationale above is what a group of editors used in order to rationalize their admin friend using a secondary account to facilitate harassment against me last year. It is not a fun situation, nor is it a fair situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how a stricter policy is going to help us when the problems we have been having are with people who are violating the current policy. The people following the current policy are not causing the problem, it is the people violating it. They will just violate the more strict policy and carry on. The only people who will be effected by this increase in strictness will be those who follow the policy. Chillum  14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Chillum here. We're seeing policy violations, not failure of policy. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Smokey Joe: (1) the current policy is not working; (2) half-witted rationales would hopefully be few, and if they got as far as a CU would trigger a pro forma polite refusal.
 * Chillum, how many admins need to operate multiple accounts without disclosure to the community? Not many, I hope: after an initial rush, I'd expect not more than one or two applications a week from admins and non-admins. (2) Part of the rationale is to send a message to the whole community concerning multiple accounts. WP is the project "anyone can edit"—yep, with one account. If you have special needs for operating secret accounts, apply and be securely listed by the CUs (or use an IP address). Tony   (talk)  14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, RE "half-witted rationales would hopefully be few". If so, then all is well.  If not, then such a requirement should be quickly abandoned before exhausting the checkusers.  My fear is that if at the registration point if users are asked to declare statements, then many will for no good reason.  I agree with Chillum, that if all editors are expected to follow this, then it would be necessry to explain it upfront (which is in principle something I oppose, due to needless complication of registration)  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Plenty of admins use undeclared alternate accounts, you should try it sometime to get a fresh perspective here. I do it sometimes to see how the community treats new users. Our sock puppet policy has always accepted more than one account per person, and admins are people too. People not following the policy is not a failure of policy. By that logic we should make 3RR more strict because people edit war. I fail to see why we need to register the people who are following the policy in order to respond to those who are not following the policy. It won't fix anything and will change our fundamental stance on anonymous editing. Chillum  14:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Plenty of admins" ... I'm concerned. Your reason, to research how new users are treated, sounds like an admissible reason to put to a CU. (I'm unsure what you'd do with the findings, though, and whether more than a handful of experienced users do or need to do this; and also why the acid test isn't just to edit as an IP and see how people treat you; now that would be more revealing and more useful to forming guidelines that are true to our pillars.)
 * One of the sleeping issues is that it's very hard to determine whether a clandestine account is being used according to policy. That's the nature of clandestineness. I am emotionally much more comfortable with an open community, where everyone knows who everyone else is (with the odd exception sanctioned by a CU). I think a lot of people share my feeling. I'm off to bed now. Will respond in the morning. Tony   (talk)  15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I have to say it: the policy as it is now appears to require you to gain CU permission to operate a secret account: "If public link is not desired, the user should contact a current checkuser in advance to obtain permission for operating multiple, unlinked accounts." Tony   (talk)  15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not need to be concerned because it is allowed. Any abusive use is forbidden but the mere presence of an anonymous account is allowed. Making it policy to register your account won't make it easier to find these abusive alternate account because these people are already violating the current policy, there is no reason they would suddenly obey it and register. Or are you suggesting that admins undergo random checkusers(if so then I strongly oppose on privacy grounds)? I don't think the current policy requires declaration of alternate accounts. Chillum  15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact this current discussion seems to be against the idea of this being a requirement. I have clarified the wording of the policy to better reflect the lack of consensus to require this. Chillum  15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum - if it was blatantly clear in the policy that we expect all sock puppet accounts to be disclosed, then the harasser and his friends would not have had the ground to try and excuse their actions as there being no rule that forced them to disclose. It was a loop hole that they tried to exploit to protect themselves. It is an unfair loop hole. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are extremely few alternate accounts that are used to harass or otherwise violate policy, compared to those that are used as a condition for productive editing in areas where editors would not otherwise be willing.  But I agree with Chillum that your conclusion doesn't follow.  As to the editor himself, he was already violating policy, and this was extremely clear.  As to his friends, this change still would not require them to disclose his violation of policy.  I'm not sure there is any way to get people to stop violating policy, but to the extent there is I think that's where the focus should be. Mackan79 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was as clear as you say, the people who helped cover it up would not have been able to use the loop hole in the policy as a defense. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima makes a valid point. Policies have to consider the problem cases.  It has been argued in serious venues that policy violations by administrators who used multiple accounts were unactionable because the undisclosed alternate account was an open secret or putatively obvious.  This sort of problem has come up often enough (either causing drama or compounding it) that it's sensible the settle the matter by requiring declaration.  Administrators who aren't gaming the system have nothing to lose by converting an open secret into no secret at all.  Durova  320 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think we can get plenty far enough by regulating the problematic behavior directly. Let's say I discover that you have been operating a second account without declaration. However, you have been doing so in a purely constructive manner. Clearly, to make such a policy at all meaningful, I need to block one of those accounts; but given the assumption that no harm is being done, I can't interpret that block as anything but drama-fodder. If there's harmful behavior that's currently unactionable, make it actionable; don't regulate a related, but non-harmful practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that operating a secret account can possibly be proper in any way, even though by definition it is an inappropriate and wrong act. Your premise is clearly flawed and contradictory. You are justifying the protection of people with contempt for our rules and process, and I find that highly inappropriate. There is no right to a secret account and people who have such have no respect for our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is "by definition an inappropriate and wrong act." Consider the following hypothetical: An individual secretly operates two accounts. Each account has no contributions, excepting that each has created one article and brought it to featured status. It escapes me how this person's actions are "inappropriate and wrong", and I am mystified by your contention that their contributions would demonstrate contempt. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to how you can disagree. The policy makes it clear that people are not supposed to have secret secondary accounts. Are you claiming that the policy is no longer true? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just that the policy may be incorrect (and in the event, its language is more nuanced than you suggest, it says that "users should contact a current checkuser ... to reduce the chance of being blocked for sockpuppetry" - not exactly an outright requirement). At any rate, you seemed to have shifted your claim from "wrong by definition" to "wrong by policy" -- now we can ask the question should the policy be changed. In my view, we should identify harmful behaviors and then take action against them. It's simple: (1) Identify a specific behavior, (2) explain how that behavior in itself is harmful to our goals as a community (the behavior having been defined in a way that there are no non-harmful exceptions), (3) provide appropriate incentives to stop people from engaging in that behavior. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec X 2) If an administrator has two undeclared alternate accounts active in article editing there is a huge potential problem. Editors who oppose their content or behavior are earning the secret disapproval of the admin.  The admin thereafter cannot in good faith interact with them in an administrative capacity.  It would be like having hot-and-steamy internet sex with a craigslist brief encounter who conveniently forgot to mention they're your boss.  Not good.  As a non-admin user the fear of stepping on those landmines is palpable.  There is plenty of potential behavior on the part of the non-admin user or the admin's alternate account that is testy, rude, aggressive, and perhaps even a bit uncivil (or POV, unproductive, mean, etc) and leads to lingering bad will, yet doesn't rise to the level of administrative sanction or of a finding of good hand / bad hand accounts.  Ask yourself how many editors have you interacted with heavily in content edits that were behaving like idiots, tools, or fools, but in the spirit of assuming good faith, avoiding drama, desire to work together, lack of available recourse, or just common sense, you don't do anything.  Let's say the other editor doesn't know it was you, and you later come upon a situation where they did something truly blockable, or asked that someone else be blocked.  I don't think you could be neutral.  Plus, the above already assumes a decent, good faith admin, which is not always the case.  There are plenty of rogue admins, and plenty who shoot from the hip and don't always behave in a courteous, dignified, calm, dispassionate manner.  The admins with alternate accounts are more likely to be the cowboys here, and those alternate accounts are more likely to get into article ownership and civility issues.  It's very hard to uncover this kind of sock - admins can derail an RfCU, and they will almost certainly do so because they believe their alternate account to be within the rules, and anonymity their prerogative.  Even if all were found out, influential socking admins tend to have plenty of support so it's unlikely that anyone would sanction them.  It has to get quite egregious before anything is done.  Here, kind of like an undercover vice cop conducting a "private investigation" of a massage parlor.  Are they really going to get arrested in the raid?  Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I think this could be appropriately provided for by addressing the specific problematic behaviors (most of them I think are already addressed). Even if this was not sufficient, requiring registration only where one of the accounts has administrator status would solve the problem you identify with a more limited burden than the current policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this also covered by existing policy? If an admin is in personal conflict with a user then they shouldn't be using their tools with regard to that user.  This would be true regardless of which account was in conflict.  It's the same thing as with any article or topic, as nobody should be using two accounts to deal with the same topic, issues, and so on.  But sometimes editors do wish to use a different account to edit in different areas.  Consider the expert in religion or medicine who perhaps has a private interest in sex related topics or politics, but doesn't wish to mingle editing on the two.  More broadly, there are endless reasons why a person would want to be pseudonymous on one topic, and perhaps less so on another or not at all.  I've yet to see a compelling reason why this should be prohibited -- I imagine there are thousands of editors who do this, without any meaningful conflict with other editors at all -- or any suggestion that the negative side effects of a broad-brush prohibition would be less than a policy that focused more directly on disruption.  I'm speaking generally here, but I think people need to realize that to ban alternate accounts would very likely ban a very large amount of productive editing. Mackan79 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see a compelling reason why someone would need a secret account. There is a term for it, devious. Hiding and secrets is not what Wikipedia is about. If you need to have two accounts to edit in two different subjects, perhaps you shouldn't be editing the other subjects or on Wikipedia. This behavior is not acceptable, especially if the person is unwilling to tell the CUs or ArbCom. This is a website based around creating an encyclopedia and having an account here is a privilege, not a right. It is not your right to have secondary accounts. It is not your right to have secret names. No one said that there would be a ban on alternate accounts. But you tried to make the claim that the only alternate accounts are secret ones. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what claim you believe I made. I am saying that editors are not required to publicize on their user page or elsewhere the full extent of all editing they do on Wikipedia, registered or not.  I'm also saying this would be a remarkable requirement, and one I would strongly oppose.  As far as privileges, deviousness, and so on, I think these words are  not especially helpful in resolving the best policy for Wikipedia.  Is not editing under any pseudonym "devious" in exactly the same way?  I am not saying editors have a right to edit under one pseudonym or two, but I'm saying that Wikipedia is smart to let people edit in ways that are productive, and to prohibit productive editing only where in fact that would be helpful to the project.  Mackan79 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Outdent - "just that the policy may be incorrect" I see. So, the policy is awful and horrible by requiring people not to game the system and pull inappropriate actions. I have no sympathy for your statement and the above makes me unwilling to listen to your further. The policy is set up for the protection of the people and the loop hole needs to be closed so that the bad behavior is not aided by friends of these inappropriate individuals. This is a severe abuse and you are acting like there is no problem. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's how administrators behave in practice. They develop histories and opinions of editors, and only recuse themselves if it crosses a threshold for them.  When it's in the open, their actions as admins can be reviewed and challenged.  That's usually how it comes out, someone questions an administrator's judgment in acting on a matter and the community decides whether they're involved or not.  Where the involvement is undetectable, because nobody knows it occurred through an alternate account, it's untraceable and undetectable.  Undetectable violations are unenforceable, so it's not really meaningful to say there's a policy against them.  We're not proposing an outright ban on alternate accounts, although the number of real reasons for having them is quite small.  If an editor is not ready to own up to their edits, even vis-a-vis having two anonymous accounts associated with each other, maybe that's a sign that they're not ready to edit in good faith.  One of the premises here, in addition to the right to anonymity, is that we leave edit histories and editors develop reputations.  Nothing goes away.  You can't have it all - one way or another there are limitations to what you can accomplish as a single writer.  One of those limits is that if you choose to be in a sensitive occupation or social position, you have to choose between anonymity on the one hand, and watching what you say on the other.  Wikipedia tries its best to balance the interests of the encyclopedia versus the whims, needs, and desires of individual editors but in the end the quality of the encyclopedia matters more than the goal of letting everyone edit to their maximum potential.  We don't have a magic wand that can solve the basic fact of life that you cannot have 100% credibility, accountability, and anonymity all at the same time.  There's a balance.
 * One place where the balance does, or should, tilt heavily towards the interests of the encyclopedia over the individual editor regards adminships. Being an admin is a service to the encyclopedia, it is not a personal privilege, honor, or entitlement.  Admins may simply have to stop socking because the presence of administrative socks is so disruptive, at the very limited exchange for allowing some portion of a population of 1,400 people to edit some articles they want but feel constrained.  Those articles will get written just fine if admins choose to leave them alone.  Are our article on pornography, religious cults, crimes, etc., in such bad shape that we must bend over backward to let administrators edit them anonymously?
 * In the cases I posed the problematic behavior is that the admin has the nonadmin at a disadvantage because he knows something the nonadmin doesn't (his identity as an admin), and that the admin may make decisions biased by their experiences with the alternate account. The issues arising are disruption by the alternate account that is shy of being actionable, and the chilling effect on nonadmins of knowing that the unactionable disruptive editor they're dealing with is actually an admin.  Saying that the behaviors can be dealt with through normal process doesn't work, because the premise is that they cannot.  This is nonblockable disruptive conduct by administrative socks.  When administrative socks commit blockable violations then all heck breaks loose upon discovery, as we have seen.  Registration would solve this only as long as the alternate account identifies itself as the alternative account of an administrator - but that introduces its own problems, e.g. privilege. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with requiring this of admins, I just don't see how it helps. I do recognize that editors may be uncomfortable with the idea that they do not know the full editing background of an admin, but really, isn't it a bit silly to even think that you would have all potentially relevant information?  An admin may have friends, private contacts, may be a crook, may have a COI; I mean, if you're so concerned about knowing who you are dealing with then it could equally be said that perhaps Wikipedia isn't your ideal environment.  Just sayin... Mackan79 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just idle suspicion. I've been caught up more than once in socky admin behavior, and it has cost me a lot of wasted time and aggravation.  I am part of the chain that lead to Law's discovery as an admin sock for one, and if you look at my block record the only entry there relates to my opposing a swarm of sock / meatpuppets that were rapidly deleting content as part of the "trivia wars".  I don't remember all the details and it's convoluted and involves Arbcom, but I think one or two admins were de-sysopped or retired, someone was banned, it entertained Wikipedia Review for days, etc.  All I had to do to trigger that was hit 1RR on three different articles, and argue my content position here and there.  If there's a bad editing environment from all this cloak-and-dagger stuff I'd rather see us do away with admin socks than that I quit the project.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are misconstruing my position. I wholly acknowledge that there might be a problem. I read your description of the problem; I gave a hypothetical example of what you specify to be the problem in an effort to further understand you view; you did not address what you found offensive about that example. I can only conclude that there was nothing offensive about it, and that in actuality you have misidentified the problem. Probably, you actually have a problem with a behavior like "harassment", not "use of an unregistered second account". If so, it's the harmful behavior that should be regulated. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe policy has ever said that editors should disclose alternate accounts. You also can't just create obligations like that for the entire project on a whim.  I personally would feel much more comfortable with this discussion if it started with an attempt to catalog the reasons people use alternate accounts, see if those uses are legitimate and helpful to the encyclopedia, and see if there are better ways to accommodate those editors while reducing behavior that is found problematic.  The current discussion is very much from the hip, and unlikely to produce useful results in that manner. Mackan79 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare "I don't believe policy has ever said that editors should disclose alternate accounts." with "Alternative account notification" which says "it is generally required that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases" with the alternative being that they instead merely inform ArbCom/CUs of the connection. It is in plain English. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so Jehochman added this a couple of days ago, claiming that it was more consistent with practice? That's just false, and should be changed back; there has certainly not been any consensus established for the proposition.  I am going to revert the change pending some explanation of where this consensus has been shown. Mackan79 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Poll
There has been plenty of discussion, and that discussion can continue. I would like to gauge the current consensus regarding this issue. Please indicate your opinion and why you hold it. Chillum 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Should users be required to declare their alternate accounts to an authority such as a checkuser or arbcom?


 * Oppose this requirement Wikipedia has always allowed anonymous editing. The sock puppet policy allows for legitimate use of alternate accounts and describes what are forbidden uses. The recent problems we have been having were the result of people ignoring this policy. If the policy became more strict then those already ignoring it would continue to do so. This would solve nothing and create an environment where users who do follow policies are forced into linking their accounts, thus removing the privacy that an alternate account can afford. Privacy is a legitimate reason to have an alternate account. Chillum  23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Admins yes, others no - there are potential conflicts of interest, and much potential for disruption, should admins go secretly undercover with alternate accounts. This affects even the most conscientious, policy-abiding administrator but also permits undetectable violations of administrative policies.  A registration requirement would greatly assist in rooting out bad faith socking and help establish accountability and a review trail for good faith lapses in judgment.  Yet it would permit alternate accounts, managed properly, if done in good faith and per some standards, e.g. promising not to act in an administrative capacity on subjects or with editors with whom the admin has interacted via the alternative account.  Unlike regular editors, who it can be said have a right to anonymity, right to disappear, and so on, administrators in their capacity of administrators are held to a number of standards that come with the position.  You can't have it all, and the requirement to register and act carefully with secret alternative accounts would do a lot more good to the project in the form of building trust and avoiding suspicion and scandal than it would cause harm in the form of some admins feeling unfree to edit certain articles for whatever reason.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but surrendering my privacy was not "part of the deal" when I signed up to be an admin. I am not about to reveal my other accounts and compromise my privacy because there was a decision after the fact that admins don't get the priviledge of editing anonymously. My real name is tied to this account and I use other accounts in areas I know that people attack other people in real life over and I am not about to link them to a checkuser, arbcom, or anyone. I know first hand that a) real life harassment is a very real concern here and b) Wikipedia sucks at keeping anything a secret. Are we going to desysop or block admins who refuse to follow this requirement? Does it apply to new accounts, or accounts that have already existed for a while? Chillum  14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need a secondary account to have "privacy", then perhaps you shouldn't have a primary account? If you are so concerned that you are some how revealed operating under one pseudonymous entity that you need two, perhaps the internet or public in general is a little too revealing for you to bother to deal with at all. There are people who live in mountains because of this very reason. And if your real name is tied to the account, whose fault is that? My real name is tied to my account but I take no concern because I stand by my words without a desire for subterfuge, misleading others, or the rest. The only way to ensure your privacy is not to come at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Point of order: don't you mean "declare in advance their operation of publicly undisclosed alternate accounts"? No one is saying that publicly linked alt accounts are a problem. Tony   (talk)
 * So it should say "declare... accounts publicly or to an authority..."? I think it's understood one view is to require disclosure either publicly or to some group.  But then I understand your view to go further, and require not just disclosure but advanced approval in the absence of public disclosure.  I suppose it doesn't break down to a simple yes or no. Mackan79 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Counter proposal - a requirement that all admin are required to publicly announce all accounts as of now and a future instant desysopping and long term block (more than a few months) for any that are not announced in the future. The announcement of the accounts now would not necessitate a block or desysopping, but could do so if there is inappropriate content found in those edits. Any admin operating a second account should be deemed inappropriate and any admin that knows of another admin who has an unidentified secondaccount and who does not come forward would face future repercussions.


 * Support as proposer. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * let's not complicate the matter with built in draconic penalties. We have enough problems just deciding what to permit or not permit.   DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes draconian is the only way to make people know we are being serious. It is apparent that the lack of tight wording and stiff penalty has led to so many admin making a mockery of our system. I really wonder how many names would be revealed if the above goes through. I'm sure it would be surprising for everyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava: why not non-admins too? Tony   (talk)  04:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I thought it may be hard to desysop someone without sysops. :P Anyway, admin are held to a higher standard and are supposed to be objective and neutral, along with ensuring that people do not break rules. They are voted in based on trust. Trust includes not keeping abuse of their friends secret. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Authority? We have those here? And an emphatic *no* to the proposal. I'm pretty sure it compromises the right of anyone to edit anonymously. Just because things have downsides, and there is a price to be paid for something, doesn't mean we shouldn't do them. I understand that there is a price to be paid for anonymous editing. I'm willing to pay that price. How about you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How does telling other people the names of other pseudonymous accounts compromise anonymous editing? If I told you I also had an account User:i.tied.my.shoes.with.smiles, how would that compromise my identity? I don't believe anyone is talking about actual identities here, only account names. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, Kim. We have a right to anonymity versus our real-life identities. We do not, in my opinion, have a right to anonymity regarding our various accounts. I still believe one has a right to not be publicly linked to their real-life persona; I do not believe that one has a right to create and utilize multiple accounts, nor do I believe that mandatory disclosure of alternate accounts violates any right to general anonymity. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose to Ottava's proposal. A requirement of public disclosure would not be likely to make many people confess. A requirement that people disclose them to arbcom, who would keep a list and notify us of problems, seems more likely to achieve the result you're looking for. I am all in favor of desysopping those abusively running undisclosed alternate accounts, but some accounts are secret for good reasons, and ArbCom should determine that. By that, I mean collectively, not one sole arbitrator. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 04:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the people don't confess then there will be really strict penalties when their accounts are revealed and their friends are taken down with them. None of this wrist slapping. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think admin candidates should be required to reveal any alternate accounts that they are still using at the time they accept their nomination, but not accounts that they have stopped using, unless those previous accounts have been the subject of sanctions. So, if somebody stopped using an account because they were nervous about privacy issues, and then started a new account, who cares? But if they had been banned, then even if they got away with evading their ban, and behaved themselves enough to get nominated to admin or other position of trust they should either disclose and take their lumps, or decline the nomination and remain an ordinary editor. Anybody who has been banned and is truly reformed should be editing for the editing, not for the "power" of being an admin. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have always thought the the arguments for using secret sockpuppet accounts were somewhat weak (the best one was in case you wanted to edit some controversial area without it being known). However, some admins probably have old, inactive accounts that they don't use any longer. So I would say that there is only a need to disclose current, active accounts to arbcom. If someone doesn't want to disclose an account, but stops using it instead of disclosing it, that's a reasonable compromise that protects everyone's privacy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There could be a statement - an account not used for a very long time does not need to be revealed as long as it is never used again or something like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. In practical terms, if someone "has" an alternate account but never uses it, that doesn't really matter. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Many people begin with their real name, later to change their mind.  Many older users even registered their email address, providing real name and workplace.  No longer used accounts should be exempt.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support mandatory disclosure of all alternate accounts which an administrator holds. The most severe penalties should be meted out to those in violation of this policy: up to and including permanent bans. I further support requiring all prospective admins to disclose their accounts and submit to a checkuser upon submitting RfA. Current admins should be checkusered as well. Let's bite the bullet and and get some credibility around here.


 * The community should reasonably interpret this on a case by case basis; id est, if an admin has an account from 4 years ago which she forgot about, this is obviously an exception.


 * I am sorry if this is authoritarian. I rarely edit anymore, but still lurk around. Nothing disheartens me like seeing a trusted user appear to have a sockfarm. The use of sockpuppets is appalling. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support disclosing to ArbCom or functionaries. It has been accepted practice for some time either to link alternate accounts on the user pages, or where there are privacy concerns, to pass the names of the accounts to ArbCom or functionaries. The point is: someone other than yourself and your friends has to know about the accounts; otherwise you risk being accused of sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose anything that says anyone must disclose private information to anyone not formally constrained by the wikimedia privacy policy to protect that information (eg. the arbs), as explained below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, seeing as how user names are not "private" in any regard, your oppose wouldn't apply to revealing what user names you use. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The connection between two usernames, and the identity of the person behind them, is what I consider private. Perhaps it has not been clear that I assume that any disclosure to the CUs involves positively identifying your real identity.  If I have been hiding this information for years, it is unrealistic, even foolish, to think that I would reveal it all in an unsecure email to a mailing list with poorly defined membership, and members who are not formally bound to respect the privacy of the information that I give.  The CUs are already in the practice of not revealing real world information on even the most egregious sockpuppeteers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obvious now that your definition of "private" does not match the dictionary nor any common usage. Privacy is not having separate identities in every facet of your life. There is no requirement to reveal your name, your address, your age, or actual "private" information. The continual use of the term when it means the examples just provided in order to claim that having a secret separate account is "private information" is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I find your comment difficult to understand. If alt. account#1 is already connected to your real identity, and alt. account#2 is not, then I do not believe it reasonable to ask that the accounts be publicly linked, if there is no case of abuse.  Disclose to the WMF, or select agents, OK.  Disclose via an insecure channel (eg email), no.  I agree to limiting the number of undisclosed accounts to, obviously, less than the number of facets of one’s life.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "account#1 is already connected to your real identity" And whose fault is that? You don't have the right to multiple identities. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a "fault" to introduce yourself, just a mistake, sometimes. On "the right to multiple identities"?  I think I'll have to simply disagree with you here, for reasons already given.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you're fully considering that if people edit relating to all of their interests with one account, it will often be obvious to anyone that cares who they are, where they live, where they work, the range of their interests, what they're working on, or so on. Let's say I feel like editing relating to the high school I went to, or my home town, or a professor I had in college, or a school or work-related page.  If people had to do this with one account, then pseudonymity becomes useless.  Either the editing stops, the editors leave, or the policy is ignored.  Does that help the project?  As far as disclosure, that sounds nice, but I agree with SmokeyJoe.  Plus how many people concerned with their privacy feel like explaining their concerns to groups of editors they know nothing about, or even seeking such a group's standard-less approval?  Editing is a privilege, I know, but the point is that hurdles of this nature operate at a substantial cost, in the editing lost as well as the attempts to ensure compliance. Mackan79 (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, this thread is a little confusing. I was replying to Ottava's proposal that would require administrators and other trusted user classes to disclose their alternative accounts. I think this is a fair rationale. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose any increase of rules that complicate new editors joining wikipedia. Where it should cut in, if below admin application, I don't know.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose requirement for registration, for admins or otherwise. Don't see non-abusive alternate accounts as a problem (haven't caused any problems so far that I have seen, can't imagine how they would in the future). I also agree with SmokeyJoe that the party to whom disclosure is made is not adequately bound to the privacy policy, in my view. Such a policy would likely involve connecting real name accounts with pseudonymous accounts, which has significant privacy implications. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support mandatory disclosure of all alternate accounts by all registered users to checkuser (I have no problem with disclosure to ArbCom, but checkuser is probably better equipped to keep track of alt accounts, and ArbCom has enough other duties to keep them busy). Sock puppets have been a major problem with disruptive editors, and we need to move to zero tolerance. I recently came across a disruptive editor who was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing, used socks and multiple IP addresses to evade the blocks, was finally indef blocked for socking and block evasion, and then used socks to evade that block, beginning the day of the indef block. Less than 2 weeks after the last confirmed socking, an admin (not the blocking admin) lifted the indef block because he promised to be good; he's been in constant WP:BATTLEs since. Finell (Talk) 04:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support mandatory disclosure to ArbCom (and them in turn to WMF) of all alternate accounts of users with userrights of sysop, crat, checkuser, or oversight. Also for all members of ArbCom, whether sysops or (in the unlikely event) not. Penalties for failure to disclose can be determined at a later date once this is approved in principle. → ROUX   ₪  04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as the last few week's dramahz have shown information is leaked and people's real lives are often affected. Want to wedge a grenade at the opposition? Out them on wikipedia review with no consequences or pester them with a sock farm. Sorry, make it an option with a number of variables to encourage those who feel comfortable disclosing aspects of alternative accounts but certainly not require it. An option could be "I use an alternative account to edit articles in sexuality areas", etc or "I use an alt account to edit articles that would put my/people I work with safety at risk" but not have to disclose which those accounts are. Unfortunately hacking occurs with some of the theoretically most secure information on the net. I just can't envision Wikipedia being ahead of the curve on the security front and given it's a community run by anon volunteers it would be foolish to expect so. We can't guarantee confidence and security so why should our volunteers be compelled to put their jobs and safety at risk? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Christopher Parham. Unworkable anyway - you have to choose between toothless (affecting only those who aren't abusing) and draconian (checkusers all round!). Neither option is better than the status quo, despite its faults. PS Plus checkuser isn't infallible either, so the draconian option still leaves room for determined abusers to escape. Rd232 talk 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support for all users. Let's not be so precious about privacy. Why is it that some people use their real names without so much as a blink? Privacy is the ultimate cloak for bad behaviour; using one's real name makes positive social behaviour much more likely. The disadvantages of openness are overrated in part by those who want to play at being a different person. I don't go along with the use of such terms as "draconian", which imply great suffering. Let's loosen up and be real people towards each other. Openness of identity is the handmaiden of the "kindness" that Jimbo talks of, and the enemy of identity deception. Tony   (talk)  14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems quite naive. We've had numerous cases where people have been harassed in real life. If everyone were compelled to not edit unless their identity was confirmed first that might push for more civility - except when it doesn't. Then you have legal avenues of defamation suits and restraining orders, etc. There are some very good reasons for retaining some anonymity and by eliminating editors' right to privacy we'd likely drive away many of the very people we wish to have contribute. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has always used their real name without an issue, I don't think this debate is about privacy vs. openness. I believe it is about a very specific practial issue. Under all proposed policy options here, users will continue to be able to make and use as many accounts as they want (i.e. no actual regulation of account creation). Also under all proposed policy options, users who are using multiple accounts abusively are sanctioned. The difference of opinion is what to do about users who use multiple accounts without abusing them. For instance, if we determine (rightly or wrongly - no way to positively know) that you are also User:Jimmy1, but there is no indication of abuse, what do we do? I believe no sanction is required - there has been no harmful behavior. As I see it, requiring registration takes the opposite position - it makes the use of the second account itself a violation warranting sanction, regardless of whether abuse has taken place. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose based on my understanding of the technical limitations of a checkuser. Realistically, most of us have access to more than one IP address.  For those who are in school, it's the school IP and the home IP; for those old enough to drive, there's probably a lot more than that (libraries, Internet cafés, possibly one's employer, plus in most cases the home IP).  Oh, and then there's cellphones.  Soooo ... a smart sockmaster will keep his socks always on separate IP's with no overlap.  This means that a checkuser on the main account will not show us even the slightest hint that there might be any other accounts anywhere.  Now, granted, if we approached the problem from the other end ... starting with the suspected socks and requiring them to undergo a CU, they would likely all geolocate to the same area, and could thus be exposed as likely (if not definite) socks ... but to even attempt that you have to know the names of those sock accounts, and there will be very very few cases in which a potential admin would undergo a voluntary checkuser while actively using accounts that are suspected to be socks by other users.  Therefore, I don't think this idea will work.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise, however.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 15:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose both notification and mandatory disclosure. I've created five alternative accounts for teaching and instructional purposes, and marked all their user pages with User Alternate Acct. There is no point in requiring me to notify anyone, since that template puts each user account into Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts.  So the issue really is whether someone who creates an alternative account and does not post this template (and the matching one on the editor's main user page) must notify someone, and provide an explanation of why he/she wouldn't publicly disclose the alternative account.  (That is, should disclosure of some type be mandatory?) So one issue is whether someone who uses a main account that has or can be traced to a real person, but wants to do constructive editing of a sensitive nature (say, to articles involving sexuality) with a private/alternative account, should have to disclose that, albeit privately. My guess is that if such disclosure were required, the editor would decide not to do the (useful) alternative editing. In short, I think that those who want to do the wrong thing won't disclose, and those who want to do the right thing will either disclose or not edit at all, and so disclosure is pointless.  (And if a checkuser is notified, what should he/she do - spend time every three months verifying that the multiple accounts are not used abusively?  That's probably a waste of time - again, those who want to do the right thing are those who will disclose, and those who intend to misuse alternative accounts, particularly if this is checked, certainly won't disclose.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally against but partially in favor for administrators and higher-level functionaries. Those seeking credentials should alert checkuser and the group or person that will make the final decision, e.g. potential admins should alert the 'crats.  This will give the final decision-maker a chance to say "woah, your have recent controversy or evidence of poor decision-making skills, withdraw gracefully now" or "this looks harmless or ancient, proceed pending a complete investigation."  In the case of voted-on roles like arbcom, it's strongly recommended that the person go public, but if he cannot do so without endangering his off-wiki life this should be handled on a case by case basis.  Existing functionaries should declare to checkuser and to the group with the power to revoke their credentials as soon as any potential controversy arises or as soon as they are .  Functionaries that are higher than admins should notify their peers and checkuser now.  What I don't want is a de-facto rule that says "if you have two accounts that would cause you off-wiki grief and they are tied together, you are prohibited from holding any advanced role."  Far better would be a de-facto rule of "if you have accounts you need to keep segregated and you want to take on additional responsibility, trust a small group of people with the information and be prepared for a thorough vetting." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also insist that any functionary, including any administrator, treat articles edited by his alter-egos as if they were edited by himself for the purposes of recusal. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On a related note, if any account or alter-ego account has controversial or irresponsible edits in the distant past, they should be given much less weight than those in the recent past. COI/Disclaimer:  If these suggestions become policy, I and probably many others who are now discouraged from taking on more responsibility because of our past actions would be willing to take on these roles. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support It describes what happens--they usually do use admin rights, and it would be better to prevent it. Wording needs to be added about whom they need to disclose it to--Ilike Davidwr's approach to that point.   DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing
This article would benefit from a copyedit. It's repetitive and wordy, and given the distinctions we're making between legitimate and illegitimate uses, we need a page that's very clear. I may go in and start trying to clean it up. If I do, I'll try not to change the meaning of anything. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds productive. Chillum  23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "should" and "recommended," in regard to the edit here. The reason I have seen it recommended in past policies is to avoid potential problems for the editor in question, rather than because it achieves something positive for Wikipedia.  More to the point I am not aware of any editor who has been sanctioned simply for editing with two accounts in two different areas, though I know many would consider an attempt to sanction such a user abusive and inappropriate. I don't favor the language that I replaced, incidentally, but didn't feel that in opposing one change I should add my own.  I believe "recommended" is the consensus and long-term status of this policy. Mackan79 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CUs or the arb com email list
Some people don't agree that requesting permission (or advising your intention) for the use of undisclosed alternate accounts should be be made to the checkusers, not to arb com. This is a subtle thing, but legally significant. The arb com email list carries not requirement that the wikimedia privacy policy must be followed. One would be foolish, legally, to disclose sensitive private information to a email list not covered by the privacy policy. It is therefore absurd to ask people who think they have sensitive private information to disclose it in such an uncontrolled manner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The arb com email list carries not requirement that the wikimedia privacy policy must be followed. " I thought otherwise... –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See CheckUser and Arbitration Committee. Is it not obvious that the checkusers are charged with responsibilities involving privacy, and that the arbitrators

Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Wikipedia executives. They are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite.
 * are described as a representative group without precise responsibility? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get why SlimVirgin has repeatedly reinserted the recommendation that people with privacy concerns email arb com, or worse, the functionary email list, in order to avoid them being identified as sock puppets, despite my objection that this would be a foolish thing to do. The recipients of these email addresses include people who are explicitly not agents of wikimedia, and the set is certainly larger than necessary. Only the checkusers need to be informed to prevent "them being identified as sock puppets" as only checkusers are charged to identify sock puppets. Another problem is that email is woefully insecure. With a small amount of technical competence, you can eavesdrop on emails sent there. If your information leaked, you would never know who was responsible. If you are a person of some interest, and you have private information that you want kept private, then emailing your information to people who don't need to know at an insecure defined and constant email address is definitely something that is not to be recommended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK
Let's drop it now and revisit when we endure the next major scandal involving sockpuppetry. It won't take long. Tony  (talk)  15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? I thought we were getting very close?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
I've started the copy edit, and intend not to change anything, just to tighten the writing. However, the lead keeps bouncing back between telling the ArbCom and telling a checkuser. The latter is unworkable, as the recent Law situation showed. Accounts should not be divulged privately to one individual, because it puts that person in an awkward situation, and raises issues such as whether they're friends with that person, and so on. Whether we ask that checkusers or ArbCom be told, the information needs to be sent to the list, not to one member of it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sending the information to a checkuser list is reasonable, as long as only current checkusers may be subscribed to the list. I had assumed that any such information provided to a checkuser, by any means, such as fax (do you trust email?), would be shared.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add the ArbCom or checkuser lists, then. But the former is smaller, and therefore more secure. Alternate accounts wouldn't be covered by the privacy policy, by the way, unless private details are involved. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, the copy edit is more or less finished. I've tried not to change anything, except the points I made on this page. I removed a lot of repetition (there was a lot), removed headers from sections that were very short, often one sentence; put approved and unapproved uses in their own sections (they were in multiple sections before), and generally tried to tighten the writing. Before and after. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the expression "alternate" account, instead of "alternative," because I think the former is used more often on WP, but I'm easy either way, so long as the page is consistent. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why you would remove the clarification that it is scrutiny of controversial behavior which is not to be evaded. I see that you reduced the clarification of this provision, but from a month ago it stated:
 * Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings.[3]

You now have the following:
 * Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

I see in the previous version of the policy this clarification was linked; without linking I would think we should be equally clear that all types of scrutiny are not protected. Mackan79 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Anyone using alternate accounts should provide links between them on the user pages" seems like what was there before this debate; now it's been significantly weakened to: "It is recommended that editors who use more than one account provide links between them on the user pages". This seems like a major turnaround. Tony   (talk)  03:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is recommended that editors who use more than one account provide links between them on the user pages (see below), or disclose the accounts privately to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org) or functionaries mailing list (functionaries-en-at-lists.wikimedia.org) in order to avoid them being identified as sock puppets." [My italics] Do we need the last clause? Slight leakage into avoidance of identification when one is using an alt account to breach policy. Tony   (talk)  04:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow this policy on a daily basis, but I'm pretty familiar with it over a period of years, over which it has always recognized legitimate uses of alternate accounts. I have never seen the idea of a public linkage more than recommended. Anyone who has been around the project should similarly recognize that such a requirement has never been acknowledged, in the countless times alternate account use comes up either because of abuse or otherwise.  The concept of "scrutiny" has long been in the policy, but has always been clear that it applied to scrutiny of potentially improper activity and not for example somebody who just wants to know who you are.  These are presumably separate issues. Mackan79 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "   * Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.[1]" Do we need to add RfCs? "or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, elections, or requests for comment"?  Tony   (talk)  04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section
Not sure what to do with this, as it says proposed, and it needs a rewrite:

==Disclosure of inappropriate alternative accounts by trusted editors== Editors who hold advanced permissions (administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser) and members or clerks of the Arbitration Committee hold positions of particular community trust. When applying for and at any time while holding such a position, they are required: Failure to do so in a timely manner is grounds for removal from their position of trust by decision of the Arbitration Committee.
 * to disclose any own alternative account that could reasonably be considered inappropriate;

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who put it her, but I think it belongs to the proposed Arbitration Committee code of conduct. --SmokeyJoe (talk)


 * If someone thought they were acting inappropriate, why would they suddenly expose themselves to scrutiny? Those that are seeking to follow the policy as it is already written will avoid acting inappropriate. Adding a rule asking that people who are not following the rules report themselves seems rather silly to me. Regardless of my opinion such an addition would require discussion and consensus first. Chillum  04:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone in a position of trust, or who is seeking a position of trust, is using an account inappropriately then they should either stop doing so or resign. This language makes that clear, in case they aren't sure how to proceed. Since this applies to all arbs, functionaries, and admins, it shouldn't be located only in the Arbitration Committee code of conduct, though there's no harm in repeating it there.   Will Beback    talk    05:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It just seems to me to be saying "if you are violating this policy then please report yourself". While I agree those that are using inappropriate alternate accounts should stop and/or turn themselves in, I don't think saying so in the policy is actually going to accomplish this. I also find it odd to single out a specific group of volunteers when these rules apply to everyone. Chillum  05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of disclosure
Would someone explain the purpose of disclosing any alternate account to a checkuser, or other position holder? As proposed by Tony1, this would serve to make checkusers the gatekeepers of who can or can't have an alternate account, absent any community input into the matter. The checkusers would not be able to solicit relevant input, and the community would still remain entirely in the dark; so far no standard for the decision has even been proposed. Well connected editors would know exactly what to do, whereas most editors would be in an extremely weak and uncomfortable position to make such a request. SlimVirgin seems to suggest above what I have always understood, that disclosure is recommended in order to protect the editor from misidentification. In any case, I do not see how disclosure helps Wikipedia at all. Mackan79 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Valid points. Chillum  05:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a proposal, it's been done for some time. In fact, I believe there's an ArbCom decision about it, though I can't remember which one. The point is not to tell a CU, but to tell either the ArbCom or the functionaries list. If you choose just one person to tell, there's a risk you'll choose a wikifriend. If you have to tell the whole ArbCom, there's much less of a chance that people will keep your secret inappropriately. The point has nothing to do with misidentification, and I don't even know what's meant by that. It's so that people other than you and your friends are in a position to watch the alternate account's contribs. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're incorrect that Wikipedia has ever assumed anyone could review the full extent of others' edits. This is clearly incompatible with IP editing, and pseudonymous editing for that matter.  The idea would be particularly novel to the extent some are suggesting that ArbCom would then decide who can or cannot edit outside of a primary account, and I think immensely problematic for many reasons that have been noted without response.  But the traditional recommendation has been for the editor's own protection so that people don't get the wrong idea; this is in itself problematic in that "I told this and that person" should not be considered a relevant defense of any sort.  Of course, this is the kind of disclosure that people have used as much as anything to defend clearly inappropriate editing. Mackan79 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)