Wikidata talk:Requests for comment/Sock puppetry

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General comment

What I dislike about guidance phrased in this means, is that is all about DON'T, rather than a positively framed guidance attached to clear principles about DO. So many rules about DON'T end up with people slipping through the cracks, loopholes, etc., and other conniving means to argue their case of why they do differently, so end up with a long and complicated process and you have a very rule-based environment (like some other wikis). Then there is much time is spent blocking and people doing block evasion, for what are otherwise harmless accounts. Instead focus on blocking harmful accounts for being harmful, and ignore the noise.

So can we discuss what it is that you are wanting, what is the outcome and output that this policy/guidance is meant to be achieving/preventing. Can I suggest that what you are wanting is for people

  • to have one primary account, and
  • where [1] users have a secondary accounts[2] that these are publicly declared (and linked) [rather than hidden away and use for nefarious purposes]
  • to limit people to one vote per person, not one per account

Example: I already have multiple accounts across WMF link, though only one currently in use here. If I am on an insecure link there is no way that I will use with my steward permission account to edit, and I would use the alternate. Similarly, if I am checking permissions or a view, then I will utilise my alternate account. All valid reasons, presumably acceptable, but the line on when it is a sockpuppet is grey, hence my above argument.

  1. ↑ not if
  2. ↑ Reasons for secondary accounts are bots, for use when insecure login may be required and rights (here or elsewhere) are not wished to be exposed

 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following an IRC conversation, my comments
  • if you interchange "sockpuppet" and "problem(atic) account" how does or should that change your approach.
  • in a policy, you would not normally express procedural steps, that is for a procedure.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis to easily turn into wikilawyering, and this is no exception. I think the idea is good, but I'm really not sure if we need a bunch of DON'T DO -rules. Disruptive use of multiple accounts, block it. Voting with several accounts, block it. Other than that I don't see a reason for blocking. — Jeblad 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"declaring the connection(s)"

I don't like the rule that a sock puppet has to "declar[e] the connection(s)". I do use several sock puppets in other projects for various reasons. They usually state to be sock puppets on their user page (and of course they never vote for anything, they avoid to take part in any discussion wherever possible, and they avoid to share any topics and fields of work with my main account), but I'm not going to reveal my identity/main account. By the rules proposed here, those sock puppet accounts would have to be blocked, even though I can't see any harm in their use. --93.94.65.35 08:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see where I talked about blocking accounts in my text above just because of operating multiple accounts. Note to your text, the term sockpuppets is a pejorative and relates to the misuse and abuse of multiple accounts. Whereas an alternate account would usually mean that accounts operating, as you described, will peacefully co-exist as long as one regulate oneself in their use to acceptable behaviours. The only time it becomes a problem is when they are abused, and a checkuser is called to do some checking. I prefer it under this design as it doesn't have everyone hanging around trying to spot and prosecute a sockpuppet.

To note though that the reasons that you profess for use of multiple accounts at other wikis generally don't really apply for WD. The bulk of edits in the main ns are simply processing, should be completely uncontroversial. There truly doesn't seem to be the same reasons to have multiple accounts just to express ("controversial") opinions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sock_puppetry&oldid=1214240936"