Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

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)

Highly restrictive policy on second accounts?

Ka of Catherine de Burgh (Lady) at the height of her beauty and charm.

"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.

Bishzilla blows lightly on the little Tony, curling his hair.

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. –xeno^talk 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. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name should be cut, in favour of encouraging a formal Wikipedia: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. -- Banjeboi 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. -- Banjeboi 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. –xeno^talk 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? –xeno^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 m:Privacy policy, and specifically by m:Checkuser#Privacy_policy. I think such requests should be presumed approved unless a response indicates otherwise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2009
• Support Good basic principle. Durova²⁸⁸ 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. —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 m: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! Zero^talk 04:58, 6 October 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. Durova²⁹³ 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)

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. –xeno^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. –xeno^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 [1]. 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. –xeno^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—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—meatpuppet, sockpuppet— 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, Wikipedia: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. –xeno^talk 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems a lost cause at this point, if Arbcom [2] and Raul654 [3] are comfortable with the term. Maybe someday. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is blocking meatpuppets counter-productive towards preventing sockpuppetry?

I would imagine, that several times, the following sequence of events occurs:

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.

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)

• 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

• 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)

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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:01, 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: [4]. 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 Wikipedia: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#Apology_from_Casliber. 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#Apology from Casliber, 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:

• 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.

Failure to do so in a timely manner is grounds for removal from their position of trust by decision of the Arbitration Committee.

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 ^{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 | email)} 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. Hersfold ^(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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 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 m: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. Durova³²⁰ 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. — 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. — 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. — 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? -- Banjeboi 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. -- Banjeboi 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. -- Soap ^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)

Autoarchive?

Autoarchive? I would, but I'll probably just mess things up. There is stuff here nearly a year old and it's 218K now. Maybe we should set it on, say, 60-day archiving? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Auto would be good. I'd have thought 60 days was too long. Some policies / style guides are on 7–14 days. Tony (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

60 days is good. 14 days is way too short. Policy is a slow moving beast. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Miszabot'd. –xeno^talk 15:46, 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... –xeno^talk 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia: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. <sigh> 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:

• to disclose any own alternative account that could reasonably be considered inappropriate;

Failure to do so in a timely manner is grounds for removal from their position of trust by decision of the Arbitration Committee.

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 Wikipedia: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)

Privacy

This has been in and out of the policy at various times, so I'm bringing it here for discussion, as I don't think it's a good idea.

*Privacy: 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.

This is avoiding scrutiny. We don't want people splitting their contribs up in this way, because it's basically encouraging Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde behavior, which is a large part of what this policy seeks to prevent. If people have concerns such as the above, all they need to do is not tell their professional circle what their WP user name is. If we want a privacy section, I would suggest instead:

*Privacy: An editor may create an alternate account to edit articles that might serve to identify him; for example, he might want to edit articles about his home town or about an unusual hobby he's associated with in real life.

That allows privacy for legitimate reasons, but doesn't allow people to create alternate accounts for the express purpose of editing in controversial areas, because the latter violates the "avoiding scrutiny" prohibition. We don't want User:X—admin, checkuser, oversighter and all-round good guy—being allowed to create User:Y to make edits promoting Holocaust denial, for example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always thought that editing in controversial areas was the strongest case for making undisclosed alternate accounts; for example, an editor who sometimes edits about sexual fetishes or holocaust denial but does not want to draw criticism about this to their regular account. Indeed, apart from "making a new start", this is the only example given on the policy for why an undisclosed alternate account might be legitimate.

As for edits that might help identify someone's identity, usually we rely on the fact that accounts are pseudonymous to accomplish this. So it seems to me that the new rationale above would only apply to editors whose main account was actually a variant of their name, since it doesn't violate anyone's privacy to know that some pseudonymous account seems to have an interest in Cleveland. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor who is editing collaboratively about motherhood and apple pie as User:X, and contentiously about Holocaust denial as User:Y, is a good example of what we don't want to encourage, which is the point of the "avoiding scrutiny" provision, which I recall was inserted on the basis of something Jimbo said. I'll try to remember what the background of that was.

Someone who edits their home town, and the hobby they're well known for locally, might be outing themselves, in effect. That was always the point of the privacy provision -- to safeguard privacy, not to safeguard controversial editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As long ago as 2004, this policy said [5]

"Users with an expertise in mathamatics, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to detailed mathamatical articles with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects. Sock-puppeteers sometimes use sock puppets in talk pages to avoid extending conflicts about a particular area of interest into communitywide political conflicts related to user identity rather than to article content. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion by engaging a particular user in unrelated but philosophically motivated debate outside of that discussion."

This language about using different accounts to segregate edits on different subjects remained, in various forms, up until the present version. For example, by 2006 it had become [6]:

"A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief."

So it appears that safeguarding controversial editing was indeed one of the underlying motivations for permitting sockpuppets. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the policy has contained the latter, which is why we're having this discussion. The former point from 2004, I didn't understand after the first sentence.

This has always been a contradictory and badly written policy, in part because a lot of editors who were socking turned up to weaken it. As a result, no one really knows, except for the most obvious cases, what counts as valid and what not. That gets editors into trouble, because they misjudge where the lines are drawn. That's why I'm suggesting now that we remove the privacy clause that suggests it's okay to edit controversial subjects with an alternate account, because it contradicts the "no scrutiny" clause and the spirit of the rest of the policy, which is one editor = one account, except in very limited circumstances.

We can't maintain that position, and at the same time say, "But hey! If most of the time you edit articles about Judaism as User:Smith, by all means turn up in the evening as User:Jones to edit in promotion of Holocaust denial. We totally understand!" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Data mining techniques are getting to the point that people can figure out who you are from your choice of topics and writing style alone. Consider a biology professor who happens to collect guns (anathema to many in academia). He is within his rights to edit biological articles with one account and use another to edit gun articles. Also, how will such people be caught? They're editing in two entirely different circles, and everything is controversial. Whatever this incident with socking by The Undertow has done to Wikipedia, putting in place an toothless statement against privacy is not the solution. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue that certain areas of editing can expose you to real life harassment. Your primary account may be tied to your real name because you have released your creative commons photos here and put your name on them. If you want to edit an article about a group that is known to attack people to criticize them then using an alternate account would be protecting your privacy and safety. This is not theory by the way, I have gone through this. Chillum 18:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty lies in knowing how to word a privacy exception so that it will help the good-faith editors, but not the bad. Chillum, how about my suggestion above: *Privacy: "An editor may create an alternate account to edit articles that might serve to identify him; for example, he might want to edit articles about his home town or about an unusual hobby he's associated with in real life." Is that not extensive enough, in your view? It's the "controversial article" clause that I'm concerned about, because that is so prone to misuse. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like the addition of "that might serve to identify him or expose him to harassment or other unwanted real life consequences", or something worded better with the same meaning. I do think it is a move in the correct direction. Chillum 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

One pseudonymous account should be sufficient for any editor who wants to maintain their privacy. Allowing multiple undisclosed accounts, except for exceptional circumstances that are declared to a functionary in advance, is a bad idea. Using multiple undisclosed accounts deceives other editors and thus damages the community. Whether the deception is intentional or an unintended consequence does not matter. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this; using a separate account in two areas only deceives an editor under the very faulty impression that they should look at a list of contributions and make determinations based on the full extent of any editing they have ever done. Who has this impression, and why would we appear to support it? Regarding the community, my understanding is that it has always been based on principles to allow people to work together without disclosing all potentially relevant information about themselves. If we no longer believe that then I'd think there should be full identification, but not unenforceable half-measures that only create more centralized, but far less transparent, control over Wikipedia's editing. Mackan79 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One in addition to their main one? Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've considered making a separate account not publicly linked to this one so I could edit articles on my favorite television shows, actors and actresses without feeling judged. (for the record, I have not done so, if only out of sheer laziness) It is deceptive, but I don't find it particularly problematic. I've heard that some people have alternate accounts they use solely for no drama content work.--Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, here's a scenario. As you may know, I edit quite a bit in the area of animal rights. I try to keep my edits neutral, and although it's obvious that I'm sympathetic to the animal rights position, I try not to over-egg it. Now supposing I have much stronger AR sympathies than I let on, and I want to edit in a more aggressive way about these issues. I create User:ThinMary, and I start editing articles about animal researchers and people who own slaughterhouses, adding details about the things they've done that I can find in reliable sources -- editing that's within policy, but clearly designed to expose what I see as wrongdoing.

If caught by checkuser, I could site the privacy provision of this policy, by pointing out that very committed animal rights advocates are often harassed and persecuted, which would be entirely true, and because SlimVirgin is a known editor whom people have tried to out, I didn't want to taint her with extremist editing. Is User:ThinMary someone this policy should support? In my view, no, because her editing would inform people about SlimVirgin's editing. For me to split the contribs would be to deprive Wikipedians of important information about me, information that's needed to judge how closely my edits need to be watched, or whether I'm suitable to be given tools, and so on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys are too far into Wikipedia to see it from the point of view of a new editor. Recruiting people to Wikipedia who actually know something about science or Iranian politics or whatever and are willing to waste their time editing here should not be hindered by fear of being exposed. We don't all live in free countries. These provisions are unenforceable, except for dissidents in countries like China, who can't switch IPs as easily. Let's confine any changes to this privacy policy to people who have accepted nominations to become admins, clerks, etc. Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

One pseudonymous account is enough to protect privacy. Privacy is keeping your Wikipedia editing isolated from your real world identity. If an editor starts with their real name and wants to go sub rosa, they can abandon their account and have a fresh start. They shouldn't use two accounts without making a disclosure. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose to stop them? A person can edit from work, home, Starbucks, the library, and open wireless hubs with a different account from each, and never get caught. All you would be doing is potentially exposing people in unfree areas of the world to risk of political violence. Abductive (reasoning) 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin points to one part of an important distinction. It is okay, if one's primary account is associated with one's real-world identity, to have an alternate account for editing on subjects that are controversial in one's part of the world. It is not okay to use a secondary account to make edits that are controversial out of fear of bringing disrepute or scrutiny on one's primary Wikipedia account. For example, I sometimes Wikignome around articles about sex fetishes, porn stars, etc., correcting some spelling and grammar, fixing cite formats. That's probably okay in my world but if I were an elected official in a conservative jurisdiction I would probably want to have an alternate account for that. By contrast, I am sometimes on sock-and-troll patrol on articles about American politics, something that earns considerable enmity among, well, certain editors. It would be wrong of me for all kinds of reasons to go all Bruce Wayne and create a secret sock-fighting sock, while maintaining the outward respectability of one who is above it all. So again, with an alternate account, controversial topics good, controversial edits bad. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly realistic recommendation. If I wanted to edit an article anonymously, I would certainly just create an alternate account. Nobody is going to abandon accounts with 10000+ edits and the bit in order to edit anonymously on a few articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Having an account with a lot of edits doesn't mean much to some people. Are you speaking from a reputation point of view? Many people don't care about reputation; they are happy just to get their information onto Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's generally more convenient to use Wikipedia from a known, admin account than a brand new account. It's a much better way to get more information onto Wikipedia faster. So it's best and easiest to just ignore/violate the rule; it's unlikely you would ever be caught and even if you were, the worst likely to happen is that you would lose your admin privileges and be forced to use just one account. Which is exactly what would have happened if I had followed the rules in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, because of massive WP:OWNership of articles, even an experienced editor has problems getting valid information on to Wikipedia if s/he uses an IP or alternate account. I say we should all start using alternate accounts to combat article OWNership right now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ownership issue -- the ability to edit semi-protected articles, to say nothing of deletion, protection and other admin tools, are useful in contributing. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did mention above that I think any alteration of this privacy section should apply to admin/checkuser/etc nominees only, not to regular editors. Contributing slightly slower is not much of a price to pay for true privacy, and has always been true. And I'm serious; everybody should try contributing as an IP, just to feel the pain of WP:OWN for themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I really do not think we can just go and remove this privacy provision. Think of all of the people that created alternate accounts to avoid associating their true identity with areas of editing where harassment are common only to be told they suddenly need to reveal this link? They created this account with the expectation of privacy and it is not ethical to take the privacy away after the fact. Chillum 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the "privacy" claims in general - Users have the ability to be private - have a user name that is not identifiable. If it turns out your account is identifiable, stop using it and start a new one. This policy is about co-current uses of accounts or starting new ones while banned. One user, one account. Not one user and multiple secret accounts, nor multiple users for one account. If you are concerned about your actions having ramifications then you shouldn't be performing said actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, are you stating that these accounts should not be permitted at all, or only if the Arbitration Committee is notified and raises no objections? Risker (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've slightly lost track of exactly what we're talking about. I'd support this privacy provision without ArbCom's permission: "An editor may create an alternate account to edit articles that might serve to identify him; for example, he might want to edit articles about his home town or about an unusual hobby he's associated with in real life." But the "controversy provision," I'd say ArbCom or functionaries would need to be told about the two accounts, and the provision would have to be worded carefully, along the lines suggested by Wikidemon: controversial topics are allowed with a second account, but not controversial editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. I am afraid I was unclear, then, so will give an example. User X has a long history, but wishes to edit controversial subject Y in an entirely appropriate manner but not linked to his main account because of the nature of controversial subject Y. He thus creates alternate account Z, notifies Arbcom of the alternate account and is acknowledged, edits the subject. This would no longer be permissible if the privacy section is removed, nor does it appear to be acceptable under the proposal you have put forth at the top of this section. Risker (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support that, so long as he's editing appropriately, and so long as there's no clash with his other editing that might give cause for concern. That's where the wording gets tricky.

The policy currently says, "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."

So let's imagine we have User:A, very respectable, helpful editor, featured articles, adminship, everyone trusts him, so he runs for ArbCom. Unknown to the electorate, he's been running User:BZGHY for years, with the knowledge of ArbCom, which has run up thousands of edits to articles about pedophilia, in a way that makes clear he's a sympathizer. But he will benefit from having avoided scrutiny by being elected to ArbCom because the electors don't know about User:BZGHY, and this policy will have explicitly allowed it. So the question is: do we want this policy to allow that kind of scenario? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, we have a User:B, who is a fine editor (although it appears he resigned yesterday), so I have changed your example "bad" username. I will give you a more realistic example, Slim. Tonight some very serious privacy violations were brought to the attention of the Oversight list. On reviewing the article in question, there were clearly edits that needed to be suppressed. There were also edits that needed to be deleted but did not meet the criteria for suppression. I could not do them, and asked that another oversighter do the work. It wasn't that I was incapable of doing them, or was too busy to do them. It was because the article is about a porn movie, and I know that there are people who will use the fact that I have edited/carried out administrator functions on such an article as a weapon to demonstrate that I am unfit to be an arbitrator. It's time to change this culture, Slim. We need to stop believing only the worst of people. The only thing that really matters on this project is the content, and this obsession with who does what with what account entirely loses sight of that. That doesn't mean that problems should be ignored when they present themselves, but that we need to clearly identify what are and are not problems, and what weight those problems should get. Any use of an alternate account to adversely affect the content of the encyclopedia (including double voting on discussions related to content) would be at the top of my list of problems, with use of an alternate account to antagonise or otherwise harass another editor being a close second, but YMMV.

Back to your example. Accounts that show a paedophilic sympathy are closely monitored and/or blocked on a regular basis; it is one of the tasks that several of our former arbitrators in particular have continued since they have been out of office, and there are several other administrators who watch for such problematic accounts. That is part of protecting the content of the encyclopedia. I would be quite surprised to find an account with paedophilic sympathies that has managed to rack up thousands of edits without having been carefully scrutinized, checkusered, and probably shut down. I find your example unrealistic. I'm also worried that you seem to be vesting a great deal more authority into the Arbitration Committee than the Committee has or claims. Risker (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is like the discussion people have in aesthetics classes or art history. Does it matter that we know about artist X that he was mad, that artist Y was a pedophile, that artist Z was disabled? Does it change our view of their art? And the answer is, yes and no. We had an editor a while back, an anti-Zionist, turned up on a page about Israel, started making anti-Israel edits, and arguing strongly for them on talk. Lots of talk, lots of editors involved, many of them also anti-Zionists taking his side. It turned out, and as I recall it took a few weeks before this came out, that he wasn't an anti-Zionist at all, he was an old-fashioned anti-Semite, and I mean a real one, not a borderline case. He'd had other accounts that had made that crystal clear.

Did knowing that change his edits? No. But it made everyone uncomfortable. All the editors who'd supported him felt cheated and used. Everyone was annoyed at having wasted time discussing the issues with him. Even though not a single word of his was actually changed by our knowledge of his other accounts, at the same time, they all were. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I think we may have found a point of agreement between us, SlimVirgin: this clearly affected the content of the article, even if it didn't change a word in it, and I agree that the use of another account was unacceptable, and I will take it as understood that his prior account(s) had already been topic- or site-banned. I'm unclear if you're saying he was concurrently editing in other areas at the same time with another account, though. Regardless, if he (in a past or current account) had been banned from editing, he had no place being there, and I do feel badly for the editors who were caught up in this. At the same time, I am well aware (because I can see the list held on the arbitration wiki) that there are several very good editors who have separate accounts to edit in certain areas or for special reasons; I did a cursory look at the edits of a few of them, and they appeared to be good content edits or otherwise compliant with policy. I would like to think that if we give people a way to honestly report these accounts without making them fully traceable to the entire world (which is what happens when they are linked on-wiki), they will be far more likely to be policy compliant in their use, and will still go on to continue the development of the encyclopedia within our policies. There are real issues with criminalising good behaviour. I would hate to see some of our fine editors who have quietly returned after being harassed onwiki being removed from the project, or having to sanction reputable editors because they had the fortitude to improve a problematic article about a controversial subject (such as anything relating to unusual sexual practices or attractions) using an account separate from their "public face". These editors are doing us a service, and we need to make at least an effort to protect them from harassment or other harm. Risker (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Separating accounts for privacy has always been protected, and is obvious for situations where editors want to be pseudonymous but also edit relating to their geographic location or topics of personal interest. If we want to crack down on sockpuppetry, it should be done in ways that focus on the problem and not on the vast majority of editors who are not a problem. I'm also not convinced people are considering the negative side effects when you ignore subtlety and just ban a large set of behavior, such that editors who wish to avoid illegitimate scrutiny then lack incentive to follow Wikipedia's principles at all (that, among other similar problems). Mackan79 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A certain user whose real identity is fairly widely known (and can likely be uncovered by a determined researcher) regularly visits a certain country with a terrible human rights record. He uses an alternative name to edit articles related to that country, to protect himself and the people he meets in that country. I didn't make this up; it is a real person. Whatever change is made should not outlaw this usage of a sock. I don't think this user should have to confide in any officials either. Zero^talk 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good points, and I agree with Risker's last point above too. There's clearly no consensus to jiggle with the privacy provision, so I won't push it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the privacy section tweaked to include some aspects of SlimVirgin's original suggestion. Zero000's example is an excellent one, but a reverse situation is also possible. Suppose a pseudonymous editor wished to make some edits, was aware that this would make his/her real life identity obvious? Using Zero000's example, perhaps the editor was travelling on a well-publicized Human Rights Watch country visit and wanted to contribute some pictures and information gained on this visit, also to protect him/herself and those met. I can think of several other situations where editors limited to one account might be forced to choose between contributing and losing their anonymity. The current wording does not seem to cover this, to my mind, legitimate reason for separating edits with another account, and I support some considered expansion of this section to cover this too.--Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A method for alternate account identification

I figured I'd dust off an old suggestion I made from the archives without further comment:

The essential problem of sockpuppetry is deception - and this is usually where an admin needs to get involved. Creating the illusion of consensus, avoiding accountability, stuff like that. What do people think of having legitimate alternate accounts be identified by a deleted edit in the user page history? Would save admins the trouble of having to run to a CheckUser only to find out there are legitimate alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Personally I hate the idea of undisclosed alternate accounts, but seeing as the community allows them, too bad for me. A deleted edit on a user subpage (to avoid popping up on watchlists) would handle disclosure nicely. //roux   17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A good first step in the progress towards the prohibition of unidentified alternative accounts. But both this and the total prohibition needs to have way of handling of the occasional need for one with hidden identification, accessible only to checkusers. DGG (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A good first step would be to gain a consensus that such a requirement would even be a good idea. Chillum 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm to this being one method of identifying alt accounts, I can see objections to this being the only method as it includes far more people than declaring it to arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The other direction

I am struck by the lack of thought toward more focused ways to address problems relating with socking. As someone who sometimes sits around thinking about these kinds of things, here is a little list I recently worked up based on four categories:

1.) Remove the incentives

a.) Do more to prohibit revert warring.

b.) Do more to promote civility, or other ways of maintaining a more efficient “market place of ideas.”

c.) Give editors opportunities to restart in a non-destructive manner.

2.) Strengthen the culture

a.) Clarify sock policy so it focuses only on clear abuse, to ensure that the policy is widely supported.

b.) Increase transparency with private sock-related findings, to build faith in the system.

3.) Focus enforcement

a.) Check editors who consistently violate policy by edit warring, incivility, or in other manners, since these often turn out to be socking.

b.) Provide clearer avenues for less experienced editors to report problems in private.

4.) Increase structure

a.) Increase identification among voluntary positions.

b.) Increase the role of these positions in evaluating disputes.

Potential problems to avoid:

1. Over-reaching, and creating limitations that are counterproductive or unnecessary.
2. Systemic biases (by carelessly increasing authority to run checkuser, for instance).
3. Non-transparent controls.

I don't know if any of this appeals to others (all aspects may not be feasible), but my view is that as long as you have pseudonymous/IP editing, and don't actively require 1 person/1 account at registration, these types of ideas are the most productive way to go. Mackan79 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Existing alt accounts

I can see that some editors want to use the recent sockpuppetry cases to justify tightening the rules about alternate or former accounts. Personally I thought these rules were about right, and find it bizarre that the response to breaches of these rules is to tighten them rather than find better ways to enforce them, such as checkuser on random admins.

I think we have an anomaly about clean starts, with the expectations of some !voters at RFA now in opposition to the concept of a clean start. It would be sensible to tighten the clean start policy along the lines of "however if in future you wish to run for administrator or other post within Wikipedia you would need to declare your previous account either publicly; or by informing arbcom and asking them to rule whether any blocks or other misbehaviour are sufficiently old that the former account can be treated as a former account in good standing and not publicly disclosed."

There is also an unpalatable hint of retrospective rule changing here. I think that if we do rule out some formerly legitimate uses of alternate accounts we should make it clear than any such tightening of the rules only applies to future edits. If we were to restrict admins to only using their admin account and declared accounts such as user:WereSpellCheckers, then admins who have been using alternate accounts within the rules should have the option of either using those accounts within the new stricter rules, or simply ceasing to use those accounts. Edits made in accordance with the policy of the time should continue to be good edits, even if similar edits would no long be allowed. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about not being retrospective, if only because I am not sure all of us will be able to remember all the accounts we may have used for demos and the like. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

restoring an example

At some point in the recent changes we lost this example of an alternative account "For example, longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Does anyone object to it going back in? I appreciate it adds slightly to the length, but strikes me as the most obvious example of why we need to allow alternate accounts. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I want it back. I have been advocating this in order to educate people about the high level of WP:OWN which is a far worse problem for the recruitment and retention of editors than any abusive sockpuppetry that might result from this example being in the text. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I want it back too. It is very educational to use Wikipedia without the benefit of reputation, ownership issues do become more obvious. 64.251.77.193 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which account is the main account

It seems in recent editing that a new provision was added to the lead:

Where an editor is using alternate accounts, the account with which the editor originally became known to the community is regarded as the main one.

This appears to be new as of the edit here. That edit changes it from a competing standard which would ask which account had the longest history, although that standard appears to have been newly added as well.

My understanding is that, to the contrary, the standard of which is the "main account" often depends on the situation, though if anything it would be regarded as either 1.) the far and away more active account, or 2.) the one used in community discussion. It could be argued of course that an editor should only ever use the first account with which he became known to the community for any community discussions, but that seems unrealistic. Consider the editor who has a "bad start" and quickly starts over, for one example which has always been at least tacitly permitted. There are other scenarios that challenge the "first known" standard (it could also be questioned what it means to become known to the community, and if this applies to all or most editors), but anyway, I'm just not sure it's possible to say categorically what will be the "main account" in every case. Since I'm also not sure why identifying a "main account" is needed, perhaps it should just be removed? See how the issue is treated previously here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• When disclosing accounts, lets not play games, but be completely upfront. On every new encounter, you shouldn't have to hunt down trails to find out that the user uses. Have every account list every other account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If a person is disclosing publicly, sure, I think the disclosure would need to be on each. My point here is only that calling one a "main account" doesn't seem to affect anything, unless there's something I've missed. The only place I've seen it come up is where sock accounts are being blocked for abuse, and they're trying to decide which one is the "main account" going forward. Mackan79 (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If you can't find where that new provision was agreed to here on the talk page, you can remove it pending discussion here. I'm personally neutral on the matter. I can see the logic behind both arguments. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Socking v. block or ban evasion

The use of multiple accounts should be focused on here and coverage of block or ban evasion dealt with separately. The overlap is problematic and treating them as if they are one and the same is confusing and misleading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the overlap makes it impossible to segregate the two without being able to divine intent, i.e. without being mind-readers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the mistake is calling the page sock puppetry and then including legitimate accounts as a subsection saying that they aren't sockpuppets. It would be much clearer all round to rename the page Wikipedia:Multiple Accounts and have legitimate publicly declared alt accounts, allowed secret alternate accounts, clean start and sock puppets as different sections within that policy. Anyone object If I rename the page? ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Multiple Accounts as a redirect to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts. Thanks for the idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure that works. To make sense, Multiple accounts should include sockpuppetry as that is the abuse of multiple accounts. Sockpuppetry however should not include legitimate alternate accounts as they are not sockpuppets. Does anyone object If I rename the policy Wikipedia:Multiple Accounts and make wp:Sock_puppetry a redirect to the section on sockpuppetry? ϢereSpielChequers 16:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No objection in principle, but you'll need to clean up/rearrange the article because sockpuppetry is discussed throughout. Right now the overall tone of the article matches the "sockpuppetry" title. The tone and theme should match the main title. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, just on the basis of logic. Many of us have confused the two issues momentarily. No account begins as a sock; it becomes a sock as soon as it is used for illegitimate purposes. Two accounts are an essential part of the definition of "sock". Tony (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• My concern about doing this is in case the thrust of the page ends up being watered down. Some editors on this page, for example, want to remove that second accounts should be sent to ArbCom or checkusers, something that's been regarded as good advice for a long time. I'm becoming concerned that a very small number of accounts are changing the spirit of a long-standing policy. If we change the title of the page to emphasize the legitimate uses, with the sock aspects being discussed in a "oh and by the way" section, we're giving the impression that alternate accounts are more acceptable than they are. The default position is still one editor = one account. I'm wondering if it's worth opening this up to the wider community at some point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure

We recently lost Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below), or disclose the accounts privately to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) or functionaries mailing list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) to avoid them being identified as sock puppets. Does anyone object to my restoring that? apart from the fact that I recently disclosed an alt account to arbcom, I think that anything that encourages people to declare alt accounts is a good thing, and can resolve concerns if you go to the talkpage of a highly experienced new users and see that they are a declared alt account. ϢereSpielChequers 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle, but ask arbcom for input. They may prefer a different recipient for such disclosures, such as a checkuser or a particular arbcom-related mailing address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 October 2009

• I object.

I put back the first sentence, referring to open disclosure. Removing that was by mistake. I removed the private disclosure part from below [7] as bad advice.

Reasons why the private disclosure instruction doesn't belong include:

• Receiving such disclosures is beyond the arbs' scope, and we should not be expanding their roles from here.
• The arbs are explicitly not agents of the WikiMedia Foundation, and are not tied to the WikiMedia privacy policy. If you have a privacy concern, it would be foolish to disclose to a group without a privacy policy.
• The mechanism of disclosure, by email, is not secure. It is not hard to eavedrop on all such emails.
• The logic of the advice is missing? If you are not abusive, you will not be detected, and certainly not be publicly revealed by the CUs, who abide by a strict and defined privacy policy. If you are abusive, prior disclosure won't, and shouldn't, offer protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are times when private disclosure should be done. If you use a single purpose account to edit controversial material, sooner or later it could get you called on the carpet. If a functionary knew ahead of time what was going on, and they told checkusers when asked, it would save a lot of work and possibly avoid being blocked indefinately for being a disruptive user. Example: User edits Palestine-related articles somewhat disruptively but not breaking any hard rules to the tune of 100 edits a month. He gets sent to arbcom and he's banned from the project as being disruptive. A checkuser reveals another account with 1000 quality edits a month, but it is summarily blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned account. If this information was available in advance, the initial penalty would've been much lighter: Probably "user X is limited to 1 account and is topic-banned from Palestine-related articles."
• Another time is if an editor is editing in an area where his very life would be in danger if the accounts were linked. If arbcom knows "user X is a sock of user Y, but it cannot be linked due to the fact that he could be arrested by his dictator's henchmen" they will be more likely to go out of the way to erase such linkage from edits and log entries, should the person ever be outed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you won’t publicly disclose, and I agree reasons exist, private disclosure might be a good idea (not entirely convinced, or opposed). That is not my problem. My problem is advising people to email a defined address, with recipients who are not tied to the WikiMedia privacy policy. Private disclosure needs to be secure, and to the CUs no less, CUs who are tasked with this sort of thing, with appropriate policies in place. I have made this point several times, and been agreed with. However, SlimVirgin repeatedly reinserted the instruction to email the arbs or functionaries, without engaging in this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've opened a general discussion regarding secure email to functionary mailing lists here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, Foundation employees, members of the AUSC, and former arbitrators make up the Functionaries mailing list, and all of us are bound by the WMF privacy policy. The process of emailing the Arbitration Committee for non-public disclosure of alternate accounts has been in place for several years, and is nothing new. As to email security, that is more a matter of the sender using a secure email system, not the recipient. Alternatively, one can go to User:Arbitration Committee and use "email this user", which goes directly to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Risker (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I suspect that this is true in practice, I do not see it as watertight. Where Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee says "Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Wikipedia executives. They are volunteer users" I read a disclaimer saying that a failure on the part of an arbiter is not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation. If arbiters and former arbiters are bound by the WMF privacy policy, then can you please verify that. I note that arbiters are not even required to identify themselves to WMF. It is beside the point that this year all members have done so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Making contact through https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee is probably reasonble. Asking someone from a Chinese university to email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org is not reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept that users in China are in a different position, but notifying Arbcom seems a perfectly sensible route for editors who "create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users" such as in User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment - I created an alt account for this a few days ago and notified Arbcom of it. They told me they preferred participating accounts to be notified to them, even if they are going to be revealed at the end of the experiment. So I suggest that notifying Arbcom option be restored as an option. ϢereSpielChequers 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you accept that the notification be recommended to be done by the more secure method detailed above? Or at least provide information on the more secure method, noting that while many notifications, such as yours, are probably not really that sensitive, some may be?

I also don't understand the resistance to switching the party to disclose to from arbs to CUs. Multi-account abuse is the purview of the checkusers, not the arbs, and from many accounts the arbs are already plenty busy enough without giving them checkuser jobs. And with such large overlap between arbs and CUs, I'm sure the arbs will be collectively informed whenever there is a reason to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin yet again put the bad advice back again, amongst a flurry of edits, suggesting that it had been lost. No, I removed it because it is bad advice. Supervising all alternate accounts is not the role of the arbs, or of the functionaries, but of the checkusers, and policy advice must not invite the insecure release of sensitive information. I think the recipient of sensitive disclosures needs to be defined, and a suitable method of disclosure defined. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Balancing technical and behavioural evidence of socking

Dear colleagues,

Since the effectiveness of our ability to technically identify sock puppetry currently lies at the heart of enforcing this policy, and because I've seen a general belief expressed from time to time that ultimately the smart sock master can evade technical investigation, I wonder whether someone could list the methods of such evasion. Are any of these methods emergent?

The point of posing this question is that I suspect the enforcers will never win the arms race, and that it might be worth considering a shift in SPI towards greater admissibility of behavioural evidence where technical investigation fails to nail what is highly likely to be an instance of sock puppetry. My experience tells me that there can be a critical mass of behavioural evidence that individually may not be enough to conclude "likely" or "highly likely", but that together would be.

I ask here rather than at WT:SPI because it would be useful to have broader input, and because I don't want to take up the time of our hard-pressed CUs and patrolling admins, who work hard to investigate possible SPs. Tony (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Tony is right, and that talk of disclosure (disclose or else what?) is a waste of time. How many times has someones disclosure had any purpose? The abusers won't disclose, and can easily work out how to avoid detection, and those who disclose wouldn't have abused anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. A public discussion of ways to avoid detection would be counterproductive. But I agree that behavioral evidence is often better than technical, especially since the behavior which was the usually problem in the first place.

I disagree with SmokeyJoe's point. There seem to be situations where people Aren't sure what to do and having a procedure is a way of showing the right and wrong way. My concern is more what we'd do with the information. Should CU to whom the the disclosure is made review the accounts' edits to make sure that there isn't a current violation? Review them occasionally to make sure they are being used properly? If someone suspects a socks puppet and presents an RFCU then what should the checkuser say? "You were right" or "I can't confirm or deny that the accounts are linked, but there is no abuse"? If a functionary sees someone run for RFA or other position of trust, and knows they have alternate accounts one of which got a short block, must they say something? I don't think we've thought through how this information would be used.   Will Beback  talk  07:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you only disagree with a digression. My main point is just that if private disclosure is to be recommended, it should be recommended that disclosure be made via a secure method, and under cover of a defined privacy policy (as already exists, explicitly, for the checkusers, here). Do you disagree with this main point? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a privacy policy and a secure method for communicating the disclosure.   Will Beback  talk  10:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a case right now in which there is a vanishingly small likelihood that sock puppetry is not involved (the interface of many types of behavioural and circumstantial patterning), but where a technical investigation has been unable to produce a connection between the two accounts. Naturally, I can't disclose this publicly here, but you may empathise with the frustration. Tony (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an SPI clerk, I can safely say that at least 75% of all cases are decided purely on behavioral evidence, and technical evidence is not brought into play. It all really depends on the quality of the behavioral evidence and what the patrolling administrator feels is enough to make the block. Tony, I would encourage you to create a normal SPI case; I would be happy to look over it for you and make sure that any discussion stays on topic regarding the evidence and not about the accusation itself. NW (Talk) 15:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NW, thank you very much for your post; I will arrange for this soon. Tony (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Under "Inappropriate use ...", it says, inter alia:

*Administrator sock puppets: Editors must not operate more than one administrator account (excluding bots with administrator privileges). If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, they must give up the admin access of their old account. Candidates for adminship should normally disclose any past accounts they have used, because adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not only in an account. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts, or are found to have used a second account in violation of this policy, risk being desysopped.

The underlined portion of text is the point of this posting. It does look as though, to be true to this policy requirement, RfA candidates should be asked as a fourth standard question whether they have used any past accounts. If this is the case, someone should inform the crats who run the RfA process, do people think?

The last sentence does look as though all admins need to disclose (on their talk page?) their past accounts ... like, immediately. Is this the case? If so, perhaps it should be made known widely? Tony (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not past administrators should or must disclose past accounts should be discussed at WT:RFA. Please consider asking your question there. The text here should reflect whatever consensus develops there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly new addition which renders the whole policy ambiguous and flawed as it contradicts the longstanding clean start section. I suggest it be reverted to what it was a few weeks ago so that clean start still applies. If the RFA crowd want to change the cleanstart policy for new admin candidates the place to do so is surely here not at RFA. If anyone wants to retrospectively change the policy for all admins then RFA is definitely not the place to consider it. ϢereSpielChequers 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I want alt-account policy to be as strict as possible. Yes, it should all be discussed here, but the current text does raise problems, as you say, and need to be discussed urgently. I'll alert RfA talk. Tony (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have an element of barn door closing going on in the community at present, and there is a risk of forgetting that the reason why barns have doors is that sometimes they need to be open. I'm not sure if there've been incidents where candidates legitimately exercised cleanstart, subsequently went through adminship and we had cause to regret it. Though there have been some recent cases that remind us why wp:CLEANSTART says "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account". ϢereSpielChequers 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not replace should normally with usually and then swap or with and in the last sentence? I know it changes the meaning (quite) a bit, but it does keep the wording within the letter and spirit, and avoids all those nasty confusing barn door metaphors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with all parts of Wikipedia policy, but my impression has long been that this whole style of telling editors what they "should" do is not usually how Wikipedia operates. For one problem with the standard here, how would it ever be applied? "Should normally" or "should usually" are as far as I can see both just about useless, unless there is a clear standard for what are or aren't normal or usual circumstances. Come to think of it, I suggest anyone check out void for vagueness (a much better summary of the reasoning is here)for some of the problems associated with wording prohibitions in such vague terms (this is an issue with Wikipedia policy generally, but I'd suggest one that worsens when you attempt to harden the perceived requirements on these pages). I agree with davidwr that this should be discussed where the RfA questions are set, just as long as we continue to stick here to describing those standards and not to creating vaguely-defined admonitions that could or could not apply in any situation. Mackan79 (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I think I'm going to go try and clear up void for vagueness, if anyone cares). Mackan79 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not vague at all, as currently worded. The implications are as I've outlined at the top of this section. I'm quite happy with them, since WP has to get a grip on this practice, which is too easy to abuse (even if most people don't abuse it). It is eroding the fabric of trust in the community. I started this section to determine how RfA and the crats and admins are to be informed of the policy. Tony (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The ambiguity comes with the comparison to cleanstart below it "If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use." So Cleanstart does not currently rule out becoming an admin. The newish sentence at the top would. As for eroding the trust in the community, when have we last seen someone legitimately use clean start and subsequently lose the trust of the community? ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The relatively recent RFA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A new name 2008, comes to mind here. In that case, a user running for adminship disclosed that they had a previous account, but refused to publicly identify it; however, they were prepared to identify it privately to functionaries to verify that it had not been used improperly. In that case, the RFA failed (partly due to events beyond the candidates' control), but with a comparatively high level of support and many people, myself included, felt it was acceptable. Would this new policy forbid such an approach? I agree that we do not want sock puppets running for adminship, and that admin candidates should be obliged to disclose their prior history; but I'm not sure they should have to do so publicly. I think admin candidates should be able to have any prior accounts privately verified by trusted users, as happened in this case. We don't want adminsocks, but we don't want to drive away potential admins for fear of privacy-violating information being revealed either. Robofish (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything Robofish said. There's a need to build into the SP policy text the privacy option for disclosure. Tony (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if consensus did form to require admins to report their prior accounts, and no such consensus has formed(and I oppose the idea), it certainly cannot be retroactively applied to existing admins. When I became an admin I did so with the expectation of privacy and revealing other accounts that contain person information about myself was not part of the deal. You can't tell someone for 3 years that they can use alternate accounts to safe guard their privacy and then change your mind after the fact and ask them to expose this private information. If anyone expects that all admins must reveal their past accounts ... like, immediately... then don't hold your breath. Chillum 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The quoted text is ambiguous. Do admins need to disclose all accounts, or just all alternate admin accounts? And when does this disclosure need to happen, before RfA or during RfA or after RfA? At the moment someone is asking all candidates about existing alternate accounts, and about alternate accounts that might be created in future. I'm not sure what your proposal will stopp. Non-abusive admins running more than one admin accounts will lose one account when they declare them both. Abusive admins with more than one admin accounts will keep them both and not declare either. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything at the moment; merely pointing out the possible ramifications of the current text in this policy. I should say that I've never edited WP:SOCKPUPPET, except for a small amount of trivial copy-editing some time ago. Tony (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern with vagueness has to do with phrases like "should usually" and "should normally." "Usually" and "normally" are both non-standards. "Should" is ambiguous as to whether the described action is a requirement or always just aspirational (this is problematic in either case, since sometimes it should be considered a requirement, as when there are sanctions, and sometimes it is not reasonably expected at all). The point is our goal here should be to clarify policy, not just to hand out megaphones for people to shout into when one of these situations comes up. One problem in particular I have in mind is that a person should never be required to establish that their privacy is a legitimate concern; whatever is made policy, it can't require that (and indeed should not be evaluating specific needs at all). This is nevertheless the type of thing that's encouraged by language like "should normally," and indeed the most likely way it will be applied. Mackan79 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The last 3 times the issue has come up that I know of in the context of RFA (I give sketchy details at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Undisclosed_multiple_accounts_and_RFA), I was comfortable with what people were saying about why they had to abandon and not publicly disclose accounts they had used previously, and if those accounts had been vetted (they weren't) by a trusted third party who understood what the RFA voters were looking for, I would have supported in each case. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we all know the reason that I started to ask my question about alternate accounts. I feel the phrasing is a positive way to ask the question, and indeed, I feel it remains a valid question whether admin candidates must provide the information or should provide it. How they answer might show a lack of policy knowledge, or they may answer it in such a way that you say "wow, well said!". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Check User all admins and admin candidates

I know this has been suggested before, but why not CU all admins, and admin candidates? I think that we would benefit from a process where CU results are disclosed first through email to the Admin/candidate, and that individual is then given a chance to explain/dispute the results. Personally, I know for a fact that there are at least two other user names out their which could appear to be sockpuppets of me. One of them was simply another person editing from my old office, while a second account was in fact from my house, but was a friend making fun of me for being a little too obsessed with Wikipedia at the time. Neither is a sock, nor even active, but both of them are known to me and would be accounts that I would disclose knowledge of if asked by a CU because I think they lend the appearance of at least having multiple accounts. Anyone who edits from a shared IP, or even a shared computer is going to have the same type of white noise linked to their account, and a robust CU process for existing and aspiring admins is a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Likewise, I'm sure that many admins maintain alternate accounts simply for the sake of editing in peace and quiet on a favored subject. I have never done this, but I would consider it to be a very reasonable way for admins who are either overworked, or often involved in heated areas, to prevent burn out. Likewise, a robust CU would be a good way for the admin/candidate to get a clear picture of what could be lurking in their closet, and knowing that this information is not hidden from at least the CU portion of the community would be a smart way to encourage everyone to stay on the straight and narrow. Think of it like a drug test for athletes. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

One further thought to my own: All admins should definitely undergo a CU to verify that they are not in control of multiple admin accounts. We do need to have some reliable faith in our total number of humans with admin rights. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before. This is clearly "fishing" and is not appropriate use of checkuser; it's also an extremely inefficient method of trying to find alternate accounts. It is trivially easy to avoid having an alternate account show up on checkuser, so a clean check simply means that there is no technical link between the checked account and other accounts. More importantly, it results in the invasion of privacy of potentially hundreds of editors. Checkusering all admins and all admin candidates is not going to happen. Remember that the primary purpose of checkuser is to address disruption within the encyclopedia. Applying for adminship is not normally disruptive. Being an admin is not normally disruptive. Hiberniantears, if your good faith is going to be irreparably harmed by one bad apple (there has only been one case of someone having two admin accounts, and it would not have shown up on checkuser), then there is a different problem here, and it's not going to be solved by checkusering hundreds of good users. Risker (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, but my suggestion is considerably more expansive than that... Establish a process that involves the use of CU, but which is unique from the traditional application of CU, and which is also more private. Those of us who currently have the mop would obviously need to be handled differently since it is entirely reasonable for people to oppose this on the grounds that they didn't sign up for such treatment 3, 4, or more years ago. I've been editing since early 2005, and an admin since 2007, and I like to think that I behaved myself in that time. I would be happy to undergo a CU specifically because I have nothing to hide. This is not fishing, which is a misguided attempt to CU a bunch of accounts for the sake of a witch hunt. Rather, this is a background check, albeit a retroactive one which would go a long way toward augmenting the community's faith in the admin corps. I commented on the RfA talk page today about the ever present "RfA is broken" debate. The debate is a reasonable one because RfA is an inherently flawed process that relies more on popularity than credibility and integrity. It would behoove us to move toward some type of mechanism which effectively allows for the admin corps to be properly vetted while still protecting our privacy. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The community's inability to assume good faith because (a year after either account had edited) it was discovered that one user had two admin accounts is not going to be fixed by checkusering people for no good reason. Checkuser is to address disruption. It cannot prove innocence and does not necessarily show guilt, either. All that would result from this is increasing paranoia and would change the primary behavioural assumptions on which this project is built. It would be more effective to insist that all editors must use their real names when editing than to checkuser everybody; however, that is in opposition to the fundamental tenets of the project. Risker (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think we're talking past each other at the moment. I fully agree with what you're saying. However, what you're saying is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about developing a new tool, with a new framework. I am not dicatating the requisite components of this tool, except to say that privacy concerns need to be addressed. I am also not motivated by any one specific case. More importantly, we have had far more than one admin go bad. In some of those cases, a more robust but private inquest into an admin's background would have prevented the problems in the first place. This is also not a silver bullet for preventing abuse, but simply one tool (just as admins have more than one tool to do our jobs) in a larger workshop. Wikipedia does have a legitimacy problem. Our legitimacy problem does undermine our credibility. One facet of this legitimacy problem is based on public awareness of failings by members of Wikipedia's hierarchy who turn out to be something other than what they claim to be; in most cases something significantly less than what they claim to be. We don't, as a community, deal with this very well because we rely far to heavily on total anonymity except when someone does something so obviously eggregious for all to see. Anonymous users and honest behavior are not contrary to each other. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, a new tool? Seriously, there isn't any technologically available tool that will reliably link all edits by a single person together regardless of account. There are far too many variables in individual users, and far too many ISPs and IPs that are so dynamic that checking even a small range will show up the information of dozens or even hundreds of editors. As I sit here right now, I can be logged into three different ISPs from three different computers all within my reach, and there's no way that anyone could link those edits together technologically. ¶ Frankly, nobody outside of a subset of our own small community and a few interested gossips cares whether Editor #1 is also Admin #2 and Editor #3. What they care about is whether or not our content is any good. Do you really think that people stopped looking up Sodium chloride because RickK turned out to also be Zoe? or that people stopped improving Michael Jackson because an admin was running abusive socks? Please, let's get serious here. Our reputation outside of the project is almost entirely based on our content, and the only time that adminship was an issue outside of the project was because an admin deliberately misled a journalist about his personal background. What you are proposing here is a personnel management system, one based on inherent distrust of anyone who is interested in becoming or continuing to be an administrator, by using a tool that is not able to provide exonerating information. Risker (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'll go jump off a cliff for bothering to think conceptually. Flight wasn't technologically capable once, but we got past that limitation with a little deep thought. Heck, open and free encyclopedia's weren't even free until Wikipedia popped into the mainstream, and just because we can't do something now, or haven't bothered to think about how to do something now, doesn't mean we should be so dismissive toward anyone who bothers to think about possible solutions. That you are so ready to judge the possible as impossible through such a narrow focus as the RickK situation is troubling given your position of respect here, as well as your own open identity. Frankly, I would never be so open with my identity here as you are, and I value my privacy. That doesn't mean that I would be unwilling to undergo a process in private that seeks to more accurately account for whether or not I am legitimate. My career focuses on developing a product that requires a considerable amount of quality assurance at all points in the development process. Inevitably, things get through. However, it is imperative that when this happens we have a well devised and organic QA process which can be pointed to as evidence to a committment to quality. Sodium chloride or Michale Jackson are good articles in spite of our failings because they are popular topics in American English, with a high volume of available and credible sources, as well as a critical mass of knowledgeable and objective editors to keep watch on things. We don't have that in most places here, and this is often where the credibility of admins comes into play. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, probably the reason I react strongly and quickly to such ideas as "let's checkuser all the admins" is because this question is asked and answered so often; there's probably a similar thread on this page right now, and I routinely hear it at least once a month on one page or another. It is not a suitable tool for vetting admin candidates because it is not designed or intended to provide the answer to the question "is editor #1 operating other accounts?". Checkuser is designed to assist in determining if Account A is technically comparable to Account B; this is often difficult or even pointless unless one has both an Account A and an Account B to compare in the first place. The "weaknesses" in checkuser are not related to checkuser, but to the manner in which various ISPs throughout the world operate. There are some countries that have only a handful of IP addresses; Qatar and Singapore come to mind. There are other countries where ISPs have enormous dynamic pools of IPs to the point that checking even a single IP can pull up dozens, even hundreds of unique editors. ¶ For the past ten months, Hiberniantears, I have lived with nearly daily bad-faith accusations about almost anything I do or don't do with respect to Wikipedia, ranging from abusing oversight and suppression through poorly thought out reasoning for decision-making, to failure to include full personal details ("she must be hiding something if she won't reveal her full name and precise location!") and threats to my real-world personal and professional life. It is exhausting, and the similar experiences of prior arbitrators have significantly contributed to an over 80% resignation rate. The sad part of this is that the majority of this bad faith comes from within the project; nobody outside of the project, with the exception of banned users, questions my good faith or ability to carry out the responsibilities I have accepted. The same is true for administrators. What you're proposing is to extend the general atmosphere of distrust and bad faith that arbitrators are exposed to on a daily basis down to the administrative corps; the reasonably predictable result will be that administrators will be resigning in droves as well, once they're assumed to be acting in bad faith. There's no problem with removing permissions from administrators who are using them inappropriately or whose general editorial behaviour is inconsistent with continuing in the role; take a look at how many admins have been desysopped this year. Consider that there are considerably fewer successful candidacies for adminship (in both numbers and percentage of successful candidacies) than ever before. Consider that individual administrators do not have sufficient ability to seriously damage the content of the project; at worst, a poorly made decision can (and should) be easily reversed. Bad decision-making skills, inappropriate editorial behaviour, and abuse of administrator tools do not correlate in any way with checkuser results. As I say below, if you are after developing a quality improvement system for administrators, there are several other pages where this discussion is better suited. WP:SOCK isn't relevant at all to what you're discussing. Risker (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Risker, please understand that I've been an admin longer than you have, and that much of my admin work and admin thinking has been focused on countering vandalism, and sockpuppetry. I don't say this because I think I'm smarter or better than you. I say this because you are speaking to me as if I'm ignorant of basic admin skills and duties. I'm not some naive rube tossing out an ill-considered concept here. AGF is a great idea, but we have to be mindful of applying the concept properly. For example, if a new editor makes what appears to be a bone headed edit, we should assume good faith that this editor is not actually a bone head, but rather a new editor who may benefit and appreciate some kindly advice. Credible editors who are serious candidates for the mop, on the other hand, should not have AGF applied to them carte blanche. Subtle "vandalism" in the form of long term collusion and tendentious editing is very much alive within the admin corps as it is anywhere else. See Piotrus for example. CU would not have uncovered this (as far as we know), but I would argue that he should have been CU'd by now for his behavior and involvement with a sock-heavy group. For the rest of us, we should be treated as if applying for a job. Potential employers don't assume good faith; they ask you to sign a statement indicating if you have or have not been found guilty of a crime. This is a volunteer project, of course, but CU is a valid tool, which while not definitive by any far stretch is still highly valuable. It is one tool, and this one tool will be helpful in identifying potential problems, as it always has. I have personally blocked numerous (or arguably not so numerous) individuals based on CU results. Davidwr does a fine job below of explaining other elements of a working framework into which CU could be employed. That you don't see a problem with socking admins, or individuals controlling multiple admin accounts is deeply troubling. Wikipedia will not be a well respected source of information until it has a reliable source of monitoring the behavior of people like you and I. We currently don't, and we have had plenty of situations where unquestioned members of the hierarchy have turned out to be nutcases who embarrased the project and tarnished our credibility. Again, your only thinking of what CU has been, and if anyone here is afraid to be CU'd, I ask what it is exactly they're hiding? Esspecially if the CU results are private. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have a problem with individuals who control multiple admin accounts, and would desysop them in a second; I've written more than one desysop motion myself, and would do so in such a case, so please don't put words in my mouth. Not wanting to do mainly useless checkusers on thousands of editors has nothing to do with that. But to put it bluntly, I do not have a problem with administrators using alternative accounts within the accepted parameters of the project. Several administrators (some of whom edit under their own names) have assumed alternate accounts to deal with highly problematic articles in areas such as sexual paraphilias that would cause them considerable problem if they were associated with their usual accounts; this is a valid use of an alternative account, and is of active assistance in improving the project in subject areas that most other editors won't touch. Several administrators have obvious but not directly linked alternative accounts. Others who edit under a pseudonym have created an alternative account in their real name, not to edit but to protect it from the various vandals who take pleasure in wreaking havoc to the real lives of editors. Others yet again do their genuine editing under one account, with only their administrative actions linked to their admin account, or don't log in for anything other than admin actions. None of these things is against the current policy. Even if such actions were discovered on checkuser, there is no policy violation and no disruption to the project. I categorically reject your contention that the reputation of the project rests on whether or not administrators have alternative accounts, and put it to you that such a contention requires proof, from external sources, that it is even commented upon let alone considered a major reputational issue. I will put to you that I can speak with a fair degree of authority on the reasonable and unreasonable expectations associated with the checkuser tool, having done a fair number of checks in the past 10 months, and having learned its strengths and weaknesses. ¶ A few months ago, I was in a position where I couldn't get secure computer access, but was able to make arrangements to access a computer to do some nice casual wikignoming type editing. Within half an hour and about 40 edits, more than 30% of my grammar and spelling corrections had been reverted, and there were already 3 warnings on the talk page. One of those came from an admin, but the rest of them came from ordinary editors doing recent changes patrols with certain well-known tools. It is this kind of behaviour that creates a bad reputation for the project - and the problematic, chilling behaviour was in no way confined to administrators. ¶ Now, perhaps this discussion about reform of the administrator selection process can be moved to a page that actually deals with administrator selection rather than one that deals with only one small aspect of administrator selection. I can think of at least five other places where this discussion would be better suited. What say you? Risker (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we disagree, but probably not as funadamentally as you think. I'm not entirely convinced you fully understood what I'm talking about, and that is probably my fault for starting the thread off with too general a theme. On a slightly different note, and entirely out of my own curiosity, could you provide the difs to those 40 or so edits you made that triggered reverts and template warnings? I fully agree that trigger happy template warnings and IP/new user reversions are one of our greatest issues, so I would like to get a look at what type of edits you were making to encounter this issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally opposed. As we have discovered, CU catches only those who it detects so just because someone was CU'd doesn't mean they haven't found a way around the protocol. Also what is to prevent them from starting an alt account after they go through a CU process? Or will there be random screenings through the year? -- Banjeboi 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We can remove the CU component from this thread if we're all getting caught up on it. A poor choice on my part to lead off with it, but could we focus on my larger idea of developing at least a conceptual process for better vetting admins? Again, I don't know what would work best, but I think we would be well served to throw some ideas around and see if anything sticks. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your purpose here is to discuss a way to better vet admins, you're on the wrong page. Propose you move this entire section to WT:RFAR. Risker (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above Risker. I don't understand your abruptness in this thread. Again, it appears not to be a major concern to you for reasons specific to your apparent areas of content interest. However, I would expect more expansive thinking from anyone even tangentally associated with the ArbCom. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding use of "check user" hot-button words. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest? Some mechanism that admin-candidates go through where the IP of their main account is checked against, well, what? And what's to stop USERBOB keeping all edits from account1 on one IP, and all edits from account2 on another, unconnected, IP? Or do all admins confirm their identity through OTRS? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:AGF I think that we need to strike a balance between WP:assume good faith and protecting the project from harm. For "mere admins" the only real abuse-able power they have that cannot be undone is the power to see or restore-for-others-to-see/screen-capture deleted edits, and even that doesn't extend to WP:OVERSIGHTed edits. Given that, it should be sufficient for admin candidates to

• 1) privately disclose to any previous accounts that caused trouble "recently," where "recently" is determined by WP:RFA participants: 1 year would clearly be recent, 5 years ago probably would not be, 2) privately disclose any accounts used to make edits "very recently," where "very recently" is some shorter time, and 3) publicly disclose any accounts that caused trouble "very recently," or 4) where arbcom or whoever received the private disclosures in #1/#2 requested a public disclosure. #4 is there for cases where a very significant event happened so long in the past that it was not "very recent," such as being banned from the project for a year.
• If, for example, WT:RFA consensus set "recent" as 5 years and "very recent" as 2 years, then if I were a troublemaker in another account 18 months ago, I would have to disclose it publicly. If I edited under another account 18 months ago or was a troublemaker 3 years ago, I would have to disclose privately, but may have to disclose publicly if asked to do so. If all my other accounts were abandoned over 5 years ago, even if they were mega-troll/vandal accounts, I would not have to disclose them.
• A more likely consensus would probably be "very recent" as somewhere in the 2-5 year range and "recent" as somewhere in the 5-15 year range, possibly "forever" seeing as the project is less than 10 years old. At some point, whether that's 5 years or 25 years, we need to allow even the worst troublemakers to make a fresh start. I'm thinking of the hypothetical immature editor who trolled and socked for months on end in 2004, but who left and came back under an unauthorized "fresh start" and in 2009 or 2014 or 2029 wants to run for admin, but can't remember his old account name to disclose it.
• The definition of "caused trouble" also needs to be hammered out. As a first stab, I would suggest a non-clean block history or being involuntarily at editor review, arbitration, or any notification that you were subject to sanctions or arbcom admonishment would count as "caused trouble."

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC) updated to clarify/remove self-conflict 23:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you davidwr, this is a well considered response toward my general line of thinking. I would probably fall in line with no bad behavior in two years, with behavior in the past five years coming into consideration only in the most egregious situations. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue for people with undisclosed accounts is not "what will RFA participants tolerate in the way of old bad behavior" but "what will RFA participants tolerate in the way of undisclosed accounts that may or may not have had bad behavior" and is there any way to "vet" these accounts without public disclosure. In the extreme case, if a Wikipedia editor in China, say, had multiple accounts and one of them was used for activities that he could be arrested for and the other one was known to be him by the government, he could never risk having these tied together. If he were to accept a nomination for adminship, there would need to be some way for someone to say publicly "if this person has other accounts, none of them did anything major in the last 5 years and nothing minor in the last 2." Otherwise, the dissident is faced with a choice: Deliberately deceive all of Wikipedia, which could get him in major trouble later in real life if the connection were ever made public, or decline the nomination. Granted, we probably don't have many Chinese dissidents running for adminship, but there are a host of other legitimate reasons why a person might have multiple accounts, and there may be some people who formerly had multiple accounts that were mis-used who seek adminship after many years of clean editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the sockpuppetry policy as it was a few weeks ago was about right, and reacting to people who broke that policy by changing the policy is counterintuitive and probably counterproductive. On a lighter note I for one would not object to us admins being subject to the occasional random checkuser if that would allay some community suspicions. However I would point out that you are going to get some interesting false positives, I don't know if any of the WiFis at Wikimania connected multiple laptops through a single IP, but I've certainly seen a laptop passed round at a London meetup with multiple wikipedians logging on and off on it. ϢereSpielChequers 00:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, WSP, the answer is that yes, everyone who posts from Wikimania is on the same IP, and this has happened at multiple meetups both formal and informal. I heard tell that, shortly after I left the NYC Wikiconference, the actions of one editor resulted in the university's IP being blocked, triggering a cascade autoblock as there were so many legitimate editors trying to edit through it all. Risker (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Risker: it is impractical and unwise to enforce a mandatory checking system for admins. There are issues of (i) an overt lack of trust, and (ii) the labour-intensive requirement. This is, in fact, why I started the thread on the policy text overleaf that seems to be requiring such a mandatory system, like drug testing in professional sports. It looked too severe, and it didn't seem to me to have been discussed widely. I am still in favour of a mandatory declaration by RfA candidates that they have never operated alt accounts in breach of this policy; or that they have informed ArbCom functionaries of their alt accounts. That is not an active checking procedure.

We should also be mindful of how much acid is sprayed in arbs' faces for just doing their job well; and that sometimes this applies to admins too. This nastier side of running WP is something that normal editors are usually not aware of. Admins are people we do not want to encumber with mandatory universal testing. But the assumption that the sock policy is being adhered to needs to be made clear and promulgated widely, which is a different matter. Tony (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way we can make a policy that only administrators should report sockpuppetry?

I find it very absurd that us (peers, kids, or children) should be the "tattletales" on other people's behaviors. Nobody likes tattletales and this is the sole reason why we have administrators. These administrators act in the best interests for us (children). As I look over all the closed sockpuppet investigations, it seems to me that in some cases there are "children" who are reporting it and not the administrators. As an innocent editor, I find this unfair. My childhood days were filled with other kids tattling. Again, nobody likes a tattletale. Let the people in authority report sockpuppetry as they have more experience on what to do. It also prevents unnecessary tattling on innocent editors. Robert9673 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the 3+M articles aren't regularly patrolled by administrators, and some of these may have tempest-in-a-teapot sockpuppet activity. I also think you misunderstand the role of administrators, and I think many of us non-admins would not like to be equated with children. By the way, it's not quite true that "nobody likes a tattletale" - if I see someone in a bank bathroom putting on a mask, you bet I'm going to tell the first employee I see, and everyone in the bank including other customers will thank me for it. As an person no longer in elementary school, I hope I have the maturity and presence of mind to know when I should "tattle" and when I should "mind my own business." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an adult, not a child, and would rather be treated as an adult. I've filed several SPI reports and they've resulted in action being taken. Why should I have to go through a proxy? It would also create a kind of meta level of SPI, where first you take it to an admin SPI noticeboard so they could bring it here. Not a practical idea. Also, admins are editors, and adminship is apparently nothing special. And I know plenty that behave like children :) Verbal chat 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about the major things like bank robberies. Just minor things that kids do. For instance, let's say we have a user who thought it would be funny if they created multiple accounts. His "peer" reports him for creating multiple accounts. But this user was never officially warned that creating multiple accounts was wrong. This is what I mean that tattling can result in serious consequence for the user. It would be appropriate if the administrator would kindly tell the user that what he was doing was wrong rather than have his peer report him. In this case, the peer simply wanted him to get into trouble. Now back to my original question. How should we prevent non-admins from accusing innocent editors? It makes innocent editors feel differently towards Wikipedia after they were accused without a fair trial. Robert9673 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you use multiple accounts and your best friend "runs to the authorities" and reports you as a sockpuppeter doesn't mean you are sockpuppeting. But suppose you were. Suppose you are a noob and your best friend said "someone wants do delete our favorite TV show from Wikipedia" and you go home and create 10 accounts and post "keep it" in the resulting AFD. Well, it is possible he will do this before being warned, but the reality is he'll probably get a {{welcome}} message that points to the WP:PILLARS. These include Wikipedia has a code of conduct, which mentions acting in good faith more than once. Deception and !vote-stacking is not acting in good faith. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The welcome message is not given to every single user. It’s possible they have left a few users out. This unfortunate user will end up as being a banned user and having to wait for one year for him to ask for ArbCom for another chance. The first time was completely injustice as no one warned this user at all. But simply the other user just wanted him into trouble. Are you honestly telling you have never heard of kids when you were young who always wanted to see kids get into trouble?

If we did a policy stating that only administrators can report sockpuppetry, it means we are telling editors to not tattle on other people. But to let the people with authority handle it. If we see a bank robbery and told someone, this is not being a tattletale. A tattletale is someone who tells every single secret he hears even if it's not important for others to know. There is a difference.

I don't see how it will hurt to have this policy. It would only protect innocent editors from being accused of sockpuppetry in the future. Robert9673 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your concerns are a bit overstated. I trust admins and the arbcom to take a "but nobody told me" as a defense at face value until shown otherwise, especially if it's accompanied by an apology and a promise not to do it again. Remember, barring an arbcom sanction, any administrator can unblock. If someone were socking heavily and got not warnings and another editor blocked all the accounts, and I was asked to unblock, I would discuss it with the person, feel the out, and ask myself if they now knew the rules and were likely to follow them in the future. I trust that most admins feel the same way. Oh, of course, I would attempt to get input from the original blocking admin. If he was adamant that the block should stay, I would probably seek a 3rd admin's opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Most innocent editors aren’t sure of what to do next after they are now a banned user. They are most likely not going to tell anyone since they don’t have a clue on how to bring justice. They will probably just create another account thinking they can evade the ban. And of course this probably won’t work. And the ban becomes extended. I don’t think this is fair. We have so many sockpuppet investigations. Clearly, something is not right.

If we just did the policy, it would protect innocent editors in the future. I am not exaggerating in those examples I told. It could easily relate to another person. Robert9673 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how only allowing admins to report suspected socks would help innocent users who don't understand that once you are blocked you aren't allowed to create new accounts to evade the block. Far better would be notes on the talk page by the blocking admin saying how to be {{unblock}}ed. Remember, even if 10,000 people report a sockpuppet, he won't be blocked until an admin reviews the complaints and does the block. If the sock-puppetry requires checkuser intervention, that's more work that happens before the block is placed. Even then, it's not a ban, just a block - any admin can un-do it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If we allowed "regular editors" to report sock puppetry, then we will probably most likely have tattletales. If the administrators or "teachers" reported them, we wouldn't have to worry about the inaccuracy of the reporting. It's better to be safe than sorry. Robert9673 (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

With less than 2000 active admins, there aren't enough admins for this to be practical across a project of over 3M articles. Given the number of admins we have, the choice between "admins only reporting" and "everyone allowed to report" is analogous to "allowing anyone to call the police" and "requiring a police officer to witness a crime before an arrest is made." Obviously, both extremes have potential problems. Yes, the problems you raise are legitimate. It's just that restricting the privilege to admins not only doesn't solve all of the problems you mention, it introduces additional ones. If you want to eliminate inexperienced and low-intellectual-maturity people from the pool of those who can report sockpuppetry, you would be much better off saying something like "only those with accounts at least 90 days and 1000 edits old" or "only those eligible for WP:ROLLBACK" can ask for an investigation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not going to introduce additional ones. At least it will prevent innocent editors from being accused of sock puppetry. The current policy doesn't address this. How are we going to solve the issue then if we don't enforce the policy? Is there any way we can reach consensus? I would like to add this in the policy. Robert9673 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear what you're getting at with the word "tattletales." Editors here don't generally see themselves as students or political prisoners under oppression. I believe the reason for reporting sockpuppetry is usually that an editor feels they or Wikipedia are being cheated in a way that impedes their own ability to edit reasonably. In the least flattering sense, that's like a player telling the ref he's been fouled, but not like a child "tattling" on another just to get the other child in trouble. Unless you're referring specifically to the case of editors who have completely started over, rather than those who are using multiple accounts? If so this is something you might clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is getting long. Let's start over: Please concisely identify what the problem or problems are, concisely state what your proposed solution is, and concisely explain how your proposed solution will solve the problem or problems. Yes, I know I'm asking you to repeat yourself but with bullet-points it will be easier to follow your argument. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The key points:

• We have innocent editors being accused of sock puppetry.
• The only solution is to just have administrators to report sock puppetry. "Regular editors" who report is sometimes inaccurate and can lead to further problems for innocent editors. Their block log will always state that they were accused of sock puppetry.
• How can we claim to represent the name of Wikipedia if we don’t uphold the most cherished principle? (Assume good faith if you don’t know)
• We can still fight vandalism. But it takes all of us to do it the right way. Accusing innocent editors will just get them to vandalize to "get back" at us. Robert9673 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looking at line #2 I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the process: Only administrators can block, and they do not, or rather should not, block without doing their own investigation. When a "mere mortal" "reports" someone for sockpuppetry, they are asking for an investigation, or in cases where it's clear-cut, they are asking any administrator to look at the available evidence and take appropriate action. It is the responsibility of the administrator to read all the available evidence and do his own investigation before taking any action as strong and a block, or rely some other functionary such as a checkuser to do so. As discussed elsewhere, checkusers do more than check IP addresses, they check edit histories and the text of edits as well. If the administrator doesn't do this, that is a problem with the administrator, not with the policies and guidelines. If many administrators are failing to do this, it is a problem with administrator training, not with the policies and guidelines.

Now, as to your issues: Yes, we have innocent editors being accused of sock-puppetry. Most will not be blocked because the administrator will do his job and find that this is not the case. Some will be blocked because the administrator doesn't do his job or doesn't do it well. Some will be blocked because the evidence would convince any reasonable administrator that the person was in fact a sock-puppet. Some of these will result in people leaving the project in frustration, some will result in an appeal at which time new evidence will show the person is not a sock, and the block will be lifted, ideally with a note in the block log that the block was in error and should be disregarded, and some will not be lifted because the editor's new evidence is much weaker than the existing evidence that supports the sock claim. Allowing only administrators to initiate sockpuppet investigations won't eliminate this. It will reduce the number of false blocks, but it won't eliminate them. It will have the side-effect that many real socks that are reported, investigated, and blocked now won't be, to the detriment of the project.

Except for a few people who are either behaving like kids trying to get people into trouble and a few people whose wiki-inexperience leads them to make mistaken sockpuppet investigations, most reports are made in good faith and are, at least on their face, worth an administrator's time to look into.

Summary: Your concerns would be valid if non-admin-initiated sockpuppet reports routinely led to a block. They don't, at least not when admins are doing what they are supposed to do. They do lead to an investigation.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure in that pile of sock puppetry investigation there has got to be a group of users who are evading their ban. And I'm sure their contributions are not detrimental of the project. How do we help these users? These users clearly should never have been banned. Obviously, one of their friends reported them so they didn't have the time to bring justice by asking their administrator for another chance. For them it's too late. Is there any way to let these users off the hook? Maybe we can change the policy by stating that ban-evading users who show good faith edits can resume to editing rather than waiting for an entire year. Robert9673 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First, a WP:BLOCK is not the same as a WP:BAN. Bans are handed down by the arbitration committee, after an investigation, typically during which time all parties get to present evidence. I doubt a "tattletale victim" who was really repentant would be subject to an arbcom proceeding and arbcom ban. A block becomes a community ban when no administrator will un-block the account. Blocked editors can edit their own talk page and use the {{unblock}} template to initiate a request for unblocking and state their case. They can also use email or, through email, appeal directly to the arbitration committee. In short, we already have mechanisms in place to address the issue of an editor who is blocked undeservedly, or whose block should not result in a community ban. As for those whose actions should result in a community ban but who have come back in "stealth" mode, the official rule is that they are treated as sockpuppets and banned on sight. The de facto rule is "if you don't attract attention to yourself, we won't hunt you down." This pretty much means staying away from the articles and discussion pages your previous account edited in, and not doing anything that attracts scrutiny, like running for administrator. Now, if after a year or two of good editing someone wanted to, say, run for administrator, they would have to fess up to arbcom who they were and beg forgiveness, possibly in a public proceeding. Of course, they take a risk asking for forgiveness: They may find their new account summarily blocked for sock-puppetry pending a discussion. I would hope that the more time since the original block, the less likely the new block would stick. The "expected outcome" would be a block for a couple weeks while the arbitrators discussed the matter, then a "parole" decision basically formally stating that the person must not repeat the mistakes of the past and possibly must stay clear of certain articles or discussions, but is otherwise in good standing. Of course, I'm not on arbcom and I don't know those people well enough to read their minds, so I could be completely wrong.

If your goal is to change policy, present a concrete proposal in a new threat here and see if it is endorsed enough to stick. Bear in mind that this could take months or years and might never happen.

If your goal is to help specific individuals, please contact the arbitration committee. Handling situations like this is part of their job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Related question now at WT:RFA

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Undisclosed multiple accounts and RFA. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Original or main account

That the original account or the one that becomes best known is regarded as the main account, is something that admins have been acting on for years (certainly since 2005 when I became an admin), and has been in the policy in one form or another for years too e.g. "The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with Sockpuppeteer," from October 2007. [8] Yet now it's being removed by Mackan who is saying there is no consensus for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this above, here. Regarding this statement from 2007, I don't believe it supports your text, which referred only to the account that "originally became known to the community."[9] That the "main account" is the "best known account" would be a different standard, as for instance with Sam Blacketer which was clearly the better known account but ostensibly not the first to become known to the community. But mainly I think the quote supports my suggestion that which is the "main account" depends ("original or best-known") and is not settled. Mackan79 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no justification for expunging an established point of policy. Please return it, Mackan. Tony (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Surely you see that "best known" and "original account" are different standards. SlimVirgin has just defended the former, while the text she added (for the first time in this edit) stated the latter. If you believe one is correct, or the other, or they're the same, please explain. Mackan79 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this very unimportant. The point is that all accounts belong to the same person, and the person has been abusing. Just tag them all the same, and cross reference them all the same, perhaps subject to WP:DENY? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that admins often need to decide which is the main account -- just to be able to discuss it, or decide which sanctions to apply to which account, or how to tag them, and so on. So what we're saying here is that the account that the person originally became known by (which is often the first account, but not invariably) will be taken to be the main one. I can't see why anyone would object to this. It has been in the policy in one form or another for years, and it's what admins do, as a matter of fact. Policy is descriptive as well as prescriptive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please support your statements about what has been in the policy, if you are going to keep making them. It's visible here where you changed the standard from one to another, this month (though as noted above you added the other standard as well). In my experience users are given the choice of which account they want to continue editing with. Sam Blacketer and Privatemusings are two users who continued not with their original accounts. In any case, I do not see how admins should be instructed on which account they can tag, discuss, or so on. Mackan79 (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, I don't always pay much attention to that rule, but only because I tend to try and report based on which account I have perceived to be the main account. An investigation often leads to discovery of other accounts which may be more or less used than the original account. User:Shuppiluliuma for example, is often considered the master account of an endless number of socks, many of which rose to their own prominence in their own right and could easily be perceived (as they were by me) as unique individuals, such as User:Flavius Belisarius which I reported as a stand alone sockmaster some years back before realizing that this account was a sock of User:Shuppiluliuma. Because we're often dealing with gut instinct and vaguely associated accounts, you just have to take your best shot at composing a report that clearly associates a group of accounts. If these accounts then turn out to be subsidiaries of an earlier report, then they can easily be merged together. Our entire process for sock reporting is overly confusing as it is... I don't see an urgent need to complicate it further by arguing over the minutiae. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

New changes to the sock puppetry policy

I just don’t understand that anyone who acts or behaves like the puppetmaster should be penalized. Why can’t we just have a policy that states if you create multiple accounts and use them for disruption then we ban all of the accounts? Clearly, it is teaching the puppetmaster to not use multiple accounts. There is no need to punish the puppetmaster by banning him for an entire year. The puppetmaster clearly gets the point to only use just one account. Why make others suffer by banning them if they act or behave like the puppetmaster. I don’t think it’s fair that other people should be banned. It just makes no sense. We should assume good faith on new users. But we don’t currently. Policy should change that ONLY the multiple accounts and the puppetmaster if they are found to be causing disruption to be banned. Robert9673 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what account you were previously known by? It is clear that your experiences here are not represented by your contribution history. Chillum 05:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I second Chillum's request for further information. The survey as currently framed is kind of tangential, isn't it, raising more issues than it would ever solve? Tony (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you saw my previous conversations with davidwr, I was mentioning this. And he told me if I wanted to propose this, I needed to put it in another thread. Robert9673 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - it is not important to know what account he was previously known by, unless of course he's using multiple accounts as sockpuppets (oh the irony) or he wants to disclose it, or perhaps if he is lobbying on behalf of that account. I'm going to assume good faith here until I see a reason not to. It's far more productive to just assume the obvious: "He's not a newbie," and go from there. I will say this in the interests of completeness and humor: Chillum != davidwr, and not a meatpuppet or split-personality-thereof either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Administrators with multiple accounts

I retitled the bullet point "Administrator sock-puppets" and added some HTML comments to note the current discussions surrounding what happens if a person runs for admin but does not wish to publicly disclose those accounts. I also restored and reworded the recently-removed text, to indicate that if an undisclosed account's negative behavior would have influenced RFA or would influence a de-sysopping action, then it is likely to put the person's bit at risk. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know nobody has ever been desysoped for having undisclosed alternate accounts that were acting within the bounds of the SOCK policy. What is more there is no such policy or community practice that supports the idea. We don't desysop someone because they improved the encyclopedia with an account they did not tell us about, we do when they are evading a ban or falsely creating the appearance of more support for an idea than there actually is(ie violating this policy). Undisclosed alternate account are allowed by this policy. I am not sure where the idea came from, but if this is to be then we need a consensus for it.

Saying "Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped" is a falsehood, or at the very least an overstatement. It is only those whose use of alternate/past account were in violation of community expectations. My edit was an attempt to bring this policy in line with how things actually are. Chillum 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chillum. Admins who sock (the word for violating this policy) risk being desyssoped, but admins who don't violate the policy have never been desyssoped simply because they did not disclose a prior or alternate account to any group, and this has never to my knowledge been stated on this page. To say that admins "risk" this is a specific statement which should be based on some support. If people want to describe current policy, that's fine, but if they want to add a provision to policy which would impact large segments of the community (however unclearly under the terms here), then they need community consensus for doing it. Mackan79 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You can violate other policies and practices, such as minor vandalism that gets you warned but not blocked or simply being an ass, without violating sockpuppetry. You can also have accounts that were blocked then un-blocked but not disclosed during your RFA. I haven't checked my history thoroughly, but I think at least a few administrators have resigned under unfavorable circumstances surrounding non-sock bad behavior from other accounts.

Yes, I agree, if you have multiple secret accounts and all have clean edit histories and they stay clean, it won't be a problem.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But being an ass with an alternate account does violate this policy, where it contrasts with the account used to gain adminship. That's good hand/bad hand activity. Let's be clear that a person does not have to violate another policy with either account to violate this policy; we define here a whole series of things that abuse just the use of alternate accounts. Of course people could still be sanctioned also for reasons that we don't foresee, but we shouldn't make it sound here like they can be sanctioned without any specific reason beyond that they had another account, when as you agree that isn't the case. Mackan79 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan is right, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny is a violation of this policy. I think the wording of the policy should reflect the fact that admins who violate the sock puppetry policy are often sanctioned, it should not however indicate that an alternate account that is respecting the policy would get you desysoped. Such a statement is patently untrue, it has never happened and no part of policy or any consensus I have seen suggests it, rather policy explicitly allows such alternate accounts. I think we both basically agree and that is may simply be the wording that is an issue. Chillum 04:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum here. On a related issue, I see talk above of the violation of other policies (even significant violations such as CIVILITY and 3RR) by an alt account. Why is it that a user can spread the block log around more than one account, as it were, without falling foul of this policy? Block records are often perused by admins and arbcom WRT potential further damage to the project (and thus the determination of appropriate blocking action). Perhaps I'm a little confused. Tony (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a difficult issue in my view, and one I have vague intentions of addressing at some point in more detail. For banned editors, obviously the answer is that they cannot edit with another account. For editors under specific sanctions, I think similarly that policy must require the editor to disclose this when running for RfA. E.g., I don't believe that sanctions automatically prohibit an editor from starting another account to edit within the terms of their sanction, but if the editor wanted to run for RfA I think this would need to be disclosed. Regarding past sanctions or individual blocks, I think this is less clear. I know of repeatedly blocked editors who have switched accounts, sometimes repeatedly, and continued to be controversial. These were generally disclosed, to the extent that would be seen to alleviate the issue. On the other hand, the concept of "clean start" implies that an editor had a rough start, and that they are starting over. Perhaps then the requirement is that it is "clean," and not "dirty." My general concern, which I have some intentions to raise (if I knew where to, perhaps), is whether the approach to Wikipedia's block logs is good as a general matter. A block can be for anything, may be mistaken, or may be problematic for other reasons; it may have been overruled by consensus, or lifted. There is no way to appeal a log entry. Yet the notation is currently permanent, and more easily available than ArbCom sanctions. My feeling is that this is problematic, and may indeed be a hamper to effective rehabilitation, and therefore a cause of continued disregard for this policy; in fact, there's reason to think the entire scandal with Sam Blacketer was a direct result of this.[10] Of relevance here, I'd suggest it's a major force behind the entire "clean start" culture that's at the heart of some of the recent concerns, and I'd guess the primary reason people don't just push through a bad start and prove their value as editors. That isn't primarily an issue for here, but maybe provides a few thoughts for your question. Mackan79 (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for making a disclosure

Regarding:

Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below), in order to avoid them being identified as sock puppets.

reinserted by Mackan79 "Replace second clause (I think unintentionally removed again), hopefully we aren't going in circles"

No, to my knowledge, this has not been explicitly discussed before.

I think the bold words should not be there. I think it is not correct, or if it is partially correct, it is one of several reasons. Better reasons for providing links between separate accounts on the user page are:

• Because this policy recommends it (good guidance for the newcomer)
• Because it is open and honest. Openness and honesty are behaviours that are good for a happy and collaborative community.
• Because if you don't, and you inadvertently (or not!) cross the streams, then you'll have deceived the community, hurting the level of trust amongst the community generally.

The reason "in order to avoid them being identified as sock puppets" is incorrect is because a better way to avoid being identified as a sock puppet is to not behave as a sock puppeteer. Also, the checkusers don't, as a rule, disclose information for accidental or some kind og good faith sock puppetry without warning the person.

If we're going to present the reasons for disclosure, then let's present real reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind adding reasons that we agree on. By "being identified," I had in mind mostly the situation where a new account shows up knowing too much, seeming too familiar, or so on. In that situation people often make accusations, so it would make sense if you want to avoid this to put up a notice. But of course some editors have valid reasons which preclude public disclosure, and are conscientious and careful enough not to do anything deceptive; this is why I think it's important to give some purpose, so it doesn't appear that we're saying people should do this just because we're telling them to. A qualification of some sort would do the same job, such as "Editors are generally advised." Ideal would be something like "...may be appropriate," such as "The use of a notification template may be appropriate to comply with this policy." This might be clearer, and less suggestive. Mackan79 (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and "disclose the accounts privately to the ..."

Hi SlimVirgin,

I don't understand your insistence on reinserting the old disclosure advice [11], and why you won't enter into discussion on the talk page.

It is bad advice because a genuine reason for using an undisclosed alternative account is due to sensitive and private reasons. Advising that such information be sent by email is bad because normal email is terribly insecure, especially when from remote locations. On this point, why won't you consider it better to advise people to use the email function to advise User:Arbitration Committee, and even better, to do so while logged in secure.

The other reason it is bad is because the recipients, in particular the arbs, are not agents of the WMF, and are not tied to the WMF privacy policy. No one should ever be asked to disclose private information without a privacy policy in effect. In contrast, the CUs are explicitly tied to a privacy policy. At WT:SOCK, several people have explicitly agreed with me, and no one, not even you, has disagreed.

Further supporting reasons for disclosing to CUs are:

• Concerning themselves with alternate use of accounts is the job of the CUs, not the arbs. Disclosing to the arbs leaves out most of the CUs.
• en.wikipedia policies spill into the other wikipedias, and not all of them have well functioning, respects arbs, but all of them have only approved CUs.
• I understand that the arb and functionaries email list is already overloaded with stuff that doesn't need to go there. It is better to focus communications to where they are wanted.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I support some version of this text. While I'm not picky what text goes there, it should reflect either current practice or recommended practice. I think the current practice for confidential accounts is to either do nothing and do nothing to invite scrutiny (including running SPA accounts or running for admin) or email arbcom so someone in authority knows you aren't hiding. Whether that email is through traditional, non-secure channels or through logged-in-secure/Special:Email is only relevant if you think your outgoing mail is compromised. I don't know if there is a consensus for a recommended practice.

However, removing it and not putting anything in its place is a bad idea - it basically tells people "if you have 2 accounts and don't publicly link them you risk being called a sockpuppet" without providing an "out." Relevant edits by me: here, here, here, and here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:I've tagged the relevant paragraph as being under discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Smokey, I don't understand your reasoning. If you want to advise people instead to email ArbCom in some other way, then add that. But we can't remove it because of paranoia that a developer somewhere, or some hacker, is reading emails, if that was your concern (I didn't really understand what you were saying, especially about email being insecure from "remote locations"). And we're not talking about private information, as has been explained to you before, but alternative account names. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

Also, I have a concern that Smokey is reverting a lot on this policy, yet has made only 230 edits to articles since 2006. [12] Now, Smokey, either you're not really involved in WP and have therefore no reason to care about this policy, or you yourself are using other accounts. You're not supposed to use alternate accounts to edit policies, as the page says. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What if this is his main account and his other 3,141 accounts have under 200 edits each *joke* *nooodon'thitmeIwasjustkiddingnoooo* remember folks: WP:AGF davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, editors should not be making careless attacks on other editor's contribution histories simply because their unexplained edits are reverted. I do not see that SmokeyJoe has reverted much at all, and anyone who looks at his contribs can easily see that he is quite involved in many aspects of the project. He's certainly been better than some about explaining his edits. The comment is baseless and out of place. Mackan79 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sending private information through e-mail is not a very good idea, it is far from secure. Special:Email through https is only secure one one end, who knows what servers it will go through in plain text before arriving. Also, I don't see this as the job of arbcom, has anyone even gotten their opinion on if they want to be the custodians of alternate accounts? Telling a checkuser about your alternate account is a good idea if you are worried there might be a misunderstanding, but it is not really needed as checkusers are not going to do anything to you if your alternate account is following this policy even if they do uncover you. Chillum 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) to Chillum. We're not saying people have to tell, only that they're advised to. And it's not about private information, but account names, which aren't covered by the privacy policy unless, I suppose, they give away private information, but even then I'm not sure they'd be covered. I think the point of the advice, Chillum, is that if you tell the ArbCom you've set up User:A, then you're not likely to try to use User:A to circumvent policy, and if you do inadvertently, there's someone in theory who can point it out to you. So it's a safeguard of a sort. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What??? I thought the purpose of the section was to avoid misunderstandings. Anyone who sets up User:A to circumvent policy is not exactly going to be the type to report themselves. It is like asking all the local shoplifters to register their names at the corner store, it is not going to happen. The only sane reason to make this sort of report to a checkuser would be to avoid said checkusers from mistaking you for a sock pupptet, I am not sure why anyone would report it to arbcom as they don't handle sock puppet investigations normally. If you are just looking for a safeguard against good faith errors then any trusted friend will do, no need to bring in any authority figure. And yes, if you do not wish to link your username for privacy reasons then it is indeed private information. I would not use e-mail for anything I would not post publicly. Chillum 00:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like asking all shoplifters to register. It's like asking all shoppers to register. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• BOLD edit made, does this look okay? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I don't mind about changing to secure wikimedia, [13] but I just wondered what difference it would make in this context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion here or elsewhere where someone said email was insecure. The implication was that people could sniff the wire. While someone could sniff the wire anywhere on the Interwebs, if someone has security issues they might be concerned with their employer, local library, family member, or in some cases, government sniffing the wire. Providing instructions to connect to the Wikipedia secure email server gets them past that hurdle. In retrospect, and in light of some more recent comments the suggested insecurity of email was probably hinting that email "leaks" after it hits the intended recipient's eyeballs. There is nothing anyone can do about that, the fault, if it exists, doesn't lie with the medium but the messengee. I solve that problem with liberal uses of this tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others that it is poor advice to someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia, or even who is, that they simply email private information to the Arbitration Committee. The fact that this would not be covered by the privacy policy may be all the more reason it's a bad idea, as there is no guarantee the information will be protected, and editors should not be placed under the impression that it will be. I have communicated with ArbCom, and have reason to think information has gone to people it shouldn't have, and have communicated information about my personal identity that was also shared to an extent that I think wasn't appropriate. Mailing lists have been compromised by sockpuppets. This isn't a matter where ArbCom can't be trusted to retain information provided; it's where it isn't even their policy to do so. I think the "advised" language is also more pushy than is appropriate at the same time as being confusing as to what it denotes, but all of these are reasons to word this differently. Mackan79 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, despite best intentions Wikipedia has a poor track record of keeping secrets. Privacy is achieved, not given out. Chillum 00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I considered the removal justified because the text was flawed. It’s strongest supporting point was that it’s been there for a long time. I think one should be much more tentative about inserted new text to policy. I did try to improve the advice, by changing arb com to CUs, but the changes were reverted by SV, albeit amongst a large number of simultaneous changes. Given that SV was reverting my “improvements”, I have held back from actually inserting stuff, to discuss on this talk page instead. Yes, better advice should go back in.

“And we're not talking about private information, as has been explained to you before, but alternative account names”. Someone said something like that to me, yes, and I read it several times, but it doesn’t make sense to me. In disclosing a secret alternative account, it is likely that you should include a justification, which will involve divulging information that you have chosen not to reveal. The disclosure is likely to contain sensitive personal information. Perhaps you are thinking that a disclosure requires no justification, merely a statement that “account X” & “account Y” belong to a single person? If so, then what do you really think the arbs/CUs are supposed to do with the information. I suspect that I am thinking of real world experts/professionals, usually sporadic editors, while others seem to be focused on teenagers and undergraduates.

There is more to wikipedia than its contents. The behind the scenes community of editors, resources, rules, and customs is what made wikipedia, and is important to its future success. At the moment, I consider this policy to be a defect that is hurting the development of the project. Others also say that it doesn’t work.

I consider myself to be an objective outsider on this page, with no hidden agenda. The comments added since composing this suggest that the concerns I’ve brought up are not mine alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of protecting yourself and not looking sneaky. I set up an account a few months ago to make a small number of edits to a contentious article of a sexual nature, something that I didn't particularly want in my contribs, but I had some academic information about it that I wanted to add. So I set up the account, told the ArbCom and the main contributors, and that was that. I didn't divulge any private information. I just said, User:X is me. That's the kind of thing we're talking about. And again, we are only advising people to do it. Anyone who doesn't want to increases their risk of being accused of socking. That's just a fact, not something this policy can change. But if people want to assume that risk, that's obviously up to them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but nothing there says why you should tell arb com as opposed to the CUs, why default advice shouldn’t be use to the secure server, and why disclosures shouldn’t be covered by a privacy policy. It does not address my point that the text you just reinserted is, for some cases, bad advice.

Suppose you wish to hide your real world identity, and those academic points were significant crumbs that point to your real world identity. You’ve now told people not known to you, some of whom are not tied to a privacy policy. When the information leaks, and the pieces are helpfully collected together by some anonymous observer, you’ll have no recourse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone is hiding his identity to the point where he daren't even allow crumbs about it to fall into the hands of the ArbCom, then I would say that he ought not to be editing any article even remotely connected to him, or with an account name that anyone could connect, or an IP that anyone could connect. We can't write policies for the kinds of extreme situations you're imagining. Perhaps you could write an essay about security, or link to one that someone else has written, and we can add a link to the policy for people in similar situations.

Also, I'm not seeing the Arb v checkuser distinction you're making. The policy says you are advised to contact one or the other. You can choose (or choose to tell neither). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

“he ought not to be editing any article even remotely connected to him'” Disagree with your direction here. I think we should bend over backwards to entice knowledgeable people to edit wikipedia. We should make it easy to edit anonymously. If disclosure is a good idea, the information disclosed should, by default, be secure and covered by a privacy policy such as m:Checkuser#Privacy_policy. This is not so extreme. The system is already in place. The membership is vetted according to WMF policy. There is even the m:Ombudsman_commission already in place. These privacy concerns are already considered and addressed. It is this policy page that is stagnate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to ask one of the fuctionaries to chime in with an authoritative statement vis-a-vis the privacy policy. I'll link to the diff when I do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion. Diff. Don't expect a fast response - I asked for a definitive statement, I assume they will want to prepare something not give an off-the-cuff anwser. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• This talk of the privacy policy is a red herring, and it's been going on for weeks. (1) That User:A is User:B is not covered by the privacy policy, unless perhaps (but only perhaps) one of the names reveals personal information. (2) Everyone with access to CU is covered by the privacy policy, so if you want to trust that policy, it's safe to tell CUs. However (3), if information you pass to a CU turns up somewhere else, you are going to have to prove that the CU was responsible for a leak, and not that it got out in some other way. So sadly (4) the privacy policy is close to useless in this context. It's therefore pointless thinking in terms of it, and is really not relevant to how we write this policy. The issue of privacy might be relevant, but not the policy, so Smokey, you should really say what your substantive concerns are about that sentence. If you want to ignore it, you can, so why are you trying to remove it?

  David, did you see my question above about what difference it makes using the secure wikimedia link? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• RE (1). Yes. Obviously. That is the concern. Every concerns here stems from a case where one of the accounts is linked, or linkable, to private information.

  (2) Everyone with access to CU is covered by the privacy policy, but only with regard to information obtained through being a checkuser. It is not a viral policy. Arbs don’t necessarily have CU access. Nor are they even necessarily known to the WMF.

  (3) Goes to my point. If you send information to non-CUs, you shouldn’t expect your information to be protected.

  (4) No, that doesn’t follow. If the privacy policy applies, it applies.

  My concern with the sentence is that it encourages a foolish thing, specifically the unprotected disclosure of personal information. Not generally, but in some cases.

• RE: question to David: Using the secure wikimedia link closes the biggest security hole here. It helps a lot for someone sending information from China, or Antarctica. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

But what do you mean, if the policy applies, it applies? If there is a leak, the onus is on you to prove that the leak occurred because of a checkuser, and even if you manage to do that, it's an uphill struggle to get anyone to take action. There would have to be a serious consequence, and you'd probably have to show intent, or crass stupidity. If it was just an accident, no one will act.

Surely the sensible thing, if you have these concerns, is not to use an account that links to your identity.

What I suggest is that we add a footnote outlining your issues, and specifically that there may be some Arbs who are not covered by the privacy policy, in which case it would be safer to email the CU list (though myself I would say it's the other way round, simply because the CU list is larger). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still misleading, given that the privacy policy is not recognized to protect this type of information, especially when the arbitration committee has not requested it. Meanwhile the entire assumption that the account is expected to invite scrutiny remains one that pushes the boundaries of this policy to begin with, and for which private disclosure is not an appropriate remedy. Indeed, you suggest above for a controversial topic to inform the committee and the "main editors" of an article; let me suggest that the better solution would be a public notice or no notice at all, given that the appearance to others may well otherwise be confusing and disconcerting. Which leaves the more realistic purpose of such a provision, not to protect, but to imply that editors should be in communication with the Arbitration Committee on this issue. The only problem being that this isn't exactly advice. Mackan79 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

To allay the security concerns above, I suggest we add a footnote after the disputed sentence, so it would read:

Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below), or disclose the accounts privately to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) or functionaries mailing list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org), to avoid them being identified as sock puppets.<ref>Users with particular privacy concerns should note that all users with access to the checkuser tool are bound by the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. If you have additional concerns about the security of e-mails, consider logging into Wikipedia's secure server, then email the arbitration committee or anyone with checkuser rights.</ref>

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it be better, simpler, and easier all-round to have the checkusers nominate an account (I suggest User:CheckUsers) and have the “E-mail this user” forward the communication to a secure, central location for easy access by all the checkusers.

This would mean that simple, one step advice can be provided (KISS, unlike the above). The information goes where it is wanted. It reduces spamming to the arbs and functionaries list. The arbs and non-checkuser functionaries don’t need such information, unless a checkuser thinks otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to overall discussion above: The exact text or placement of text isn't that important to me. What is important is that people are aware that 1) if they have a completely undisclosed account, there could be issues even if their editing is stellar, and 2) there is a recommended way to privately disclose an account in a reasonably safe manner. Including a means to increase the safety of email via a secure web page is a preferred but not essential for this page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Telling people that they can use the secure e-mail if there are concerns about the security of e-mail is giving a false sense of security. E-mail is not secure! Not even if you use a secure server to send it. It goes out in plaintext as soon as it leaves Wikipedia for its recipient. Depending on who the recipient's e-mail provider is the message can go through several servers controlled by several people in plain text. We should not give people the impression that sending e-mail is secure, if anything we should warn them it is not. It would take me about 5 minutes of hacking to start reading random people's e-mails(even ones sent from a secure https form). Beyond the false insinuation that the https e-mail form is secure I support the wording as long as it is clear that such disclosure is voluntary. Chillum 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Davidwr, I am wondering what bad thing you think will happen if your editing is stellar? I think the checkusers are a bright bunch and are not going to take any action unless they see some sort of policy violation. If your actions are such that they are likely to be misinterpreted that is one thing, but if your edits are "stellar" I think there is nothing to worry about as the CUs will not see any violation. Chillum 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pehaps I overstated things when I said "stellar." Consider two scenarios: 1) An established editor who occasionally gets into arguments on a particular heated topic and goes 2RR at least twice a month on articles in that topic, and occasionally flames editors on their talk pages, but nothing too serious. Nothing so serious that any administrator will do more than give him a gentle warning given the overall history of the account. It's clear that such edits are a small minority of his edits. Consider the same editor who segregates his edits into two accounts. One account appears to be a person focused on a narrow topic who occasionally gets hot-headed about it despite repeated warnings to calm down. Yes, he stays just this side of 3RR, but his overall tone is not exactly friendly and although he isn't exactly evil a disporportionate number of the account's edits are reversions or bitey comments on discussion pages. He finds himself at editor review more than once and eventually gets blocked for a day by a fed-up administrator or hauled to arbcom. During the course of the proceedings, someone realizes X is likely Y and decides to ask for a checkuser, claiming X used Y to edit while blocked under another account. The checkuser reports "confirmed - X is Y and edited while blocked, a violation of policy" and another administrator blocks Y to enforce the block on X, or blocks both accounts for the sin of editing while blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone used account Y to edit while account X is blocked then they are in violation of this policy and should be blocked for block evasion. If any one of your accounts are blocked then you need to stop using all of them until it has expired. If they are not evading blocks or violating this policy then the check user will not do anything about it. Pre-declaring your account would certainly get you busted for block evasion faster, but then those who are going to evade their blocks are not going to report themselves are they? If they do not respect one part of the policy they are hardly likely to follow advice likely to get them caught.

Once again if you are just trying to avoid honest mistakes then any trusted friend will do, no need to burden our busy arbcom. Chillum 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On the security of email: Email can leak in several places: End-to-end encrypted mail can leak at either end. Email that is encrypted up to a point can leak from that point to the destination as well as at either end. Unencrypted email can leak anywhere. Compare this to a message posted on a secure-access-only blog or wiki: It can only leak at the ends or at the hosting site.

Arbitrators presumably use the arbitrator mailing list for internal communications. If emails sent to those addresses is not secure enough for them to use, we have much bigger problems than worrying about encouraging users to email those lists. In other words, if the arbitrators' email accounts are secure enough for them to have confidential discussions on, it's presumably secure enough for me to email, provided I can send mail in a way that meets my security comfort level. If I cannot trust my outgoing mail to be secure though, then I need a secure way to pass it off to a middle-man who can then send it to the mailing list in a way that is at least as trustworthy as the inter-arbitrator mail sent to the list.

If your concern is about the security of the arbitrator mailing list itself, please raise the issue on WT:ARBCOM, that's where the discussion belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no concern about the security of arbcom e-mail, my concern is that the wording does not imply that that using the https form is somehow secure. A false sense of security can be very disruptive to... well, security. Mailing lists are of course less secure than a single address as it has multiple points of failure. I have seen posts to that mailing list on WR before and I know that some non-arbs have had access to that list in the past, not confidence inspiring. Perhaps arbcom could release a public GPG key for the truly concerned. Chillum 23:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me question again what the value is to this, even if a person was secure in emailing information about themselves to the Arbitration Committee. The major problem I see is that, even as advice, this has not been shown in any way to be in the individual's interests to do. In my personal view it is not in anyone's interests, except specifically for those users who are in close contact with members of the committee, and believe they can rely on such members to step into a situation and vouch for that individual. This is true for a small minority, and I am not sure that it is helpful, that the Committee should be placed in this position, or so on. If this is good advice, I think we need a better explanation of why. Mackan79 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get why one would use arbcom. It is not their job and I have seen no indication from them that they even want this added responsibility. If anything a checkuser would be the group to confide in because they are used to handling privacy issues and they are the folks that are going to be investigating any claim against you. Once again, any honest friend can help you avoid an honest mistake, and those who intentionally violate the policy are not going to report themselves. This whole thing makes no sense to me. Chillum 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, agreeing with Chillum’s, and Mackan’s comments, I don’t think any such advice should go in. Too many people are oblivious to security issues, including recipients. No recipient is on record as saying they want the information. There is no statement or policy covering how the information disclosed with be treated, used, or stored. To give such advice broadly is immoral. I dispute it’s presence in a policy page, and think it should be removed.

I would prefer instead (recalling Harej’s suggestion months ago):

An entirely different suggestion

Do not use undisclosed alternative accounts without very good reason. If you must, do so only with care. Note that if you are found to be behaving abusively, m:Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information point /6, releases Wikipedia from obligation to protect your anonymity, and it is likely that all of your accounts will be blocked and publicly linked.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. It is much better advice to anyone seeking to protect their privacy while also being good advice to those seeking to violate the policy. Chillum 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This should go in whether or not advice to email arbcom/checkuser is put in or left out. Whether it fits better near the top or down in the body of the article is something to be explored - remember, policy/guideline intros, like article intros, should be summary statements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this improvement should not be at the exclusion of future improvements. Chillum 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is better advice. My only concern would be with the first sentence, which could suggest that editors are encouraged to evaluate the extent of an editor's "very good reasons." The real question should be whether there is abuse. I might suggest, "Undisclosed alternate accounts should be used only with great care. Note that if you are found to be behaving abusively...."Mackan79 (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I like "very good reasons" because it is clear that the bar is high, and that it is up to you, yourself, to decide. These words have worked well at WP:UP/10 where, in my opinion, they have lead to very good commonsense interpretation at WP:MFD. I also think that second person active tense is appropriate for this subject. This advice is for *you*, not someone else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But on UP/10, which is about retaining negative material about other editors on your user page, clearly others do evaluate the strength of the reasons for retaining such information. You couldn't insist your reasons are personal. Don't you agree that a person's reasoning isn't required here? I can't imagine where someone who uncovers this kind of situation should be demanding a very good explanation for why someone had to use an alternate account. It's another case where lying would be trivial, among other things, but mostly it's an invitation to pry into issues that can't be our business. As a matter of practice, it certainly isn't required. I think it's quite important to stick to objective criteria that have to do with the nature of the use, not inquiries into subjective concerns. I don't think you intend otherwise, of course, but it is a pretty clear problem with the language. Mackan79 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs

I'd appreciate opinions on the best way to deal with this particular situation, since it doesn't seem to fall neatly into anything on the WP:SOCK policy.

There is a user (99.135.170.179 (talk · contribs) at the moment) who has been editing some contentious articles, ranging over the last month from Roman Polanski to some Troubles (British/Ireland) articles (list of IPs). S/he always edits anonymously, and has admitted that their IP changes every few days.[14] Normally this wouldn't be a problem, except that the user is frequently edit-warring, has racked up a couple blocks on previous IPs over the last month, and is about one revert away from a third block on the current IP. Frankly, if I would have been aware of the previous block history, I probably would have already blocked a third time, but since I didn't know their history, I was going by WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

Not all edits by the IP are bad, and they have made some good changes, but I'd say that the mix of positive contributions to disruptive is about 70/30 right now. Also, to their credit, they have never used the IP editing to get around a block, and their IPs never overlap. The main problem is simply that the user is not particularly forthcoming that they're on a new IP when the address changes, so each new IP starts with a blank talkpage, and the warnings start anew. Repeated requests to the user to edit while logged in, have been ignored.

Assuming that the pattern of borderline disruption is going to continue, on whatever the next IP address will be, is there a way that we can maintain centralized information, so that future administrators don't have to start over from scratch each time? I have been mulling possible ways to deal with the situation, such as:

• Arbitrarily define one of the IPs as the "primary" IP, and require that the user put a link to it on the userpage of any new IPs that s/he uses.
• Under authority of an Arbitration Enforcement remedy, or perhaps a community discussion, require that the user only edit while logged in.
• Educate the other editors on the commonly visited articles of this IP, to report to an administrator each time they spot a new IP being used in a disruptive manner.
• Set up an WP:SPI report page, for collection of the IP information.

I wasn't sure where exactly to ask about this, such as at WP:AN or WP:AE, but I figured I'd start here. So, any suggestions? --Elonka 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note, User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[15] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[16] which itself was started at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with the user baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [17] which interestingly may have produced this response[18] to my edit here:[19]. Further my participation on the page began recently when it was at this stage:[20] as a stub without references. This was my work:[21]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive - and clearly disagree with the asserted fact that any string of 10 will contain 7 disruptive. I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)