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.

[Moulton]

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

She's mentioned here.

[Shalom]

Privatemusings: Thank you.

Beeblebrox, as to why I won't edit Wikipedia myself: I refuse to participate in a community of people who do not demand a minimum standard of honesty. However, I saw an opportunity to influence the community toward this higher standard of honesty. I vowed after my block in February never to return, and though I've said that before to no avail, this time I've held up for six months so far. I worked hard to earn my wiki-freedom, and I won't throw it away (but maybe already I have thrown it away?).

WereSpielChequers: Other policies don't relate to personal identity. If an admin turns out to be incompetent, you deal with it. RFC, mentoring, etc., ArbCom as a last resort. If an admin turns out to be a banned user, you can't really get around that by saying, "Okay, but with mentoring he can improve his behavior." Even if you don't believe in "banned means banned," the large majority of RFA kibitzers would never knowingly support a candidate who is banned on another user account.

Aiken, Theanima: Read my FAQ again:

"'''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."

I believe this is correct. The example cited by Nsk92, viz. Fys/Dbiv/Sam Blacketer, is sneaky and evasive but would not lie directly. For all your concern about a few minutes of each candidate's time to answer this fundamentally important question, you think nothing of wasting hours upon hours of volunteer time to clean up dramatic messes caused by sockpuppet admins. You forget how time-consuming these cases have been. A minute of prevention can save a week of drama.


To the Wikipedia "community":

I consider that you have abdicated the moral high ground of enforcing Wikipedia's "policy" regarding RFA candidate disclosure. The written policy contradicts itself (see WT:SOCK currently), and even if it clearly required disclosure, the lack of any enforcement mechanism such as the one I proposed renders the policy completely worthless. There are no safeguards to prevent or deter abuse of the most important information resource on the Internet (despite its myriad flaws) - a source which I use sometimes at work to lookup French-English translations that I cannot find more conveniently by other methods.

I have not edited for six months. I have vowed never to return. But if I do return, I will start over and I will not disclose that I ever had a previous identity. You will not ask me at RFA, and I will pass RFA uneventfully, and I will be a good administrator like you all know I am capable. You can do nothing to stop me. Or you can institute a question like I was proposing, and I will not engage in such activities, and I will not consider running for adminship. The choice is yours.

Yes, this is an empty threat. I have much better things to do with my time than edit Wikipedia in the vain hope of achieving an adminship status that I don't even want. But the concept is important.

I am deeply hurt, to be honest. I responded to accusations against me by going the honest route, and rehabilitating my own reputation - or trying to. Others like Smee/Cirt and Fys/Sam Blacketer tried the dishonest, evasive route. I failed. The dishonest folks succeeded. My attempt to put forward a proposal to demand a minimum standard of honesty has been shot down.

Why should I want to participate in a site which doesn't enforce a minimum standard of honesty, unless I would choose to act dishonestly myself? I guess it's only a game, not a serious academic endeavor. In games, it's okay to cheat.

By the way, since I edited via proxy (thanks again, PM!) there's no trail when I end up getting checkusered for the nth time again. I win. You all lose. The end.