Sockpuppets as RFA candidates, Please enlighten the kibitzers...please... Options

[Shalom]

Would someone in good standing in the Wikipedia "community" please post the following to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]] with a hyperlink to this page for attribution?

==New RFA question about alternate accounts: proposed text==

I am writing on behalf of [[User:Chutznik]] a.k.a. "Shalom", who posted to Wikipedia Review. [Insert hyperlink here.]

In a recent thread, [[User:Hobit]] proposed the addition of a new standard question to [[Template:RfA]] regarding the RFA candidate's use of alternate accounts. Opposition has centered on the invasion of privacy and the lack of a need for such a question. The following proposed text and FAQ attempts to move forward on this much-needed improvement.

;Proposed text

'''4.''' The following questions ask you to disclose all significant editing you may have done outside of the account to which you are currently logged in. For the policy, see [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]].
:'''a.''' Have you made any edits while logged in to another account in the last 30 days? (Do not include "anonymous" edits attributed to your IP address.)
:'''b.''' Have you made at least 100 edits while logged in to another account over the entire history of Wikipedia?
:'''c.''' Have you ever been blocked for editing under any account or while you were not logged in?

;FAQ

'''Q:''' This is a solution in search of a problem.
'''A:''' Wikipedia has been burned many times by administrator candidates who did not - and were not asked to - disclose their previous or current sockpuppeting activities. Some examples:

* [[User:Jtkiefer]], [[User:Pegasus1138]] and [[User:Thygard]] were sockpuppets of one another. Together they made more than 10 requests for adminship and bureaucratship before the deception was revealed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3]].

* [[User:Henrygb]] was desysopped and banned for abusive sockpuppetry that was ongoing during his RFA.

* [[User:Runcorn]] was desysopped and banned for similar reasons.

* [[User:Robdurbar]] went on a wild spree and was desysopped. He was later discovered to be a reincarnation of [[User:Wonderfool]] and his indef-blocked sockpuppets.

* [[User:Archtransit]] passed RFA unopposed. One month later, he was desysopped and blocked as a sockpuppet of banned [[User:Dereks1x]].

* [[User:Law]] passed RFA without revealing that he previously edited as [[User:The undertow]], who was serving a nine-month ban.

* [[User:Pastor Theo]] passed RFA without revealing that he was banned as [[User:Ecoleetage]].

* [[User:Sam Blacketer]] passed RFA and was elected to serve on ArbCom without revealing that he had been desysopped as [[User:Dbiv]].

See [[WP:FIRED]] for details. In none of these cases were the RFA candidates asked to disclose their previous accounts. To paraphrase the familiar adage: "Fool us once, shame on you; fool us ten times, shame on us!"

'''Q:''' But it hasn't happened recently.
'''A:''' It happened at least once each in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. It may happen again.

'''Q.''' Too many RFA questions. Too little time.
'''A.''' The proposed question is exceeding simple to answer for most candidates. ("No.") A candidate who uses a benign alternate account can explain it in less than five minutes. Furthermore, the community has repeatedly failed to act on proposals to limit RFA questions to a reasonable number.

'''Q.''' Asking about alternate accounts invades the candidate's privacy.
'''A.''' Any candidate who is so concerned about privacy that they are unwilling to disclose alternate accounts should not seek the community's trust at RFA. Notice that the proposed wording does not require the candidate to disclose his or her IP address, no matter how many edits it has accumulated, unless it has been blocked.

'''Q.''' Have RFA candidates faced this question before?
'''A.''' [[User:Jossi]] asked RFA candidates in December 2007 the following question: "Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?" See example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_2]

'''Q.''' So why not allow an individual user to ask the question as Jossi did, without adding the question to [[Template:RfA]]?
'''A.''' In order to deter candidates from avoiding scrutiny of possibly abusive alternate accounts, '''every''' candidate must be asked. If individual users ask this question, eventually they will lose interest, as Jossi did. The deficient ''status quo ante'' will resume.

'''Q.''' Dishonest RFA candidates might just lie.
'''A.''' Refer to Nsk92's astute response in the previous discussion: "I would not simply dismiss the proposal on the grounds that rogue candidates are not going to disclose the truth anyway. People have a remarkable capacity for self-deception but, when faced with a question about prior/alternate accounts directly, many of the "rogue" ones will simply decide not to apply."

'''Q.''' Honest RFA candidates should know to disclose alternate accounts without being asked.
'''A.''' Some honest RFA candidates will not be familiar with the detailed policy. Furthermore, the policy is ambiguous regarding whether disclosure at RFA is obligatory or optional.

'''Q.''' The wording of the proposed text is deficient.
'''A.''' Please feel free to improve the wording.

Thank you for your consideration. ~~~~

;Comments

I have decided not to edit Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. I decided to get involved in this instance because I feel that, if RFA kibitzers demanded a culture of honesty, I might not have suffered much of the emotional pain that still scars me two years after I suffered from vicious attacks against the thousands of hours I had invested in a futile attempt to gain the community's trust. I still have much to contribute, but I will never feel happy in the Wikipedia community again. Nevertheless, since nobody else seems ready or able to push this critical issue forward, I am providing the information needed to support this simple, much-needed reform.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

You neglected to mention SlimVirgin in your rogue's gallery of socking admins. But be that as it may, I don't think this will substantially improve WP, because there are many maniacal, abusive, agenda-driven admins who, to my knowledge, do not sock. If you purge the sockers, you simply turn the field over to those others, and it doesn't seem that you shall have accomplished much.

[EricBarbour]

You neglected to mention SlimVirgin in your rogue's gallery of socking admins.

He forgot Shankbone.
He forgot Guy Chapman.
He forgot JoshuaZ.
He forgot Benjiboi.
He forgot Orderinchaos.
He forgot FT2.
He forgot Raul654.

The list goes on and on and on. Nobody, not even the WMF, has any idea how many admin socks there are.

But be that as it may, I don't think this will substantially improve WP, because there are many maniacal, abusive, agenda-driven admins who, to my knowledge, do not sock. If you purge the sockers, you simply turn the field over to those others, and it doesn't seem that you shall have accomplished much.

Agreed. A simple rule change will not fix a corrupt community.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[jayvdb]

You neglected to mention SlimVirgin in your rogue's gallery of socking admins.

He forgot Shankbone.
He forgot Guy Chapman.
He forgot JoshuaZ.
He forgot Benjiboi.
He forgot Orderinchaos.
He forgot FT2.
He forgot Raul654.

The list goes on and on and on. Nobody, not even the WMF, has any idea how many admin socks there are.

Benjiboi & Shankbone have not been admins as far as we know. I'd put Orderinchaos case in the 'meat-puppet' basket, & FT2's case is even messer. Matthew & Majorly is another one.
I haven't seen that Raul654 thread before; it seems like IRC tomfoolery to me, without any mention of any socks.

But be that as it may, I don't think this will substantially improve WP, because there are many maniacal, abusive, agenda-driven admins who, to my knowledge, do not sock. If you purge the sockers, you simply turn the field over to those others, and it doesn't seem that you shall have accomplished much.

Agreed. A simple rule change will not fix a corrupt community.

I see it as a step in the right direction. Admins who use undisclosed alt accounts are more likely to be agenda-driven. If undisclosed alt accounts are not acceptable for admins, regular editors with aspirations to be an admin will think twice about it. Some RFA candidates will still lie to hide their dirty laundry, but if their lie is written on their RFA, there will be less resistance in the community to desysoping them when the alt account is revealed.