Katerenka, Which one of you is this? Options

[Krimpet]

And no one on WP can fill a t-shirt like Lara!

Not true; not by a long shot.

[A Horse With No Name]

The ostensible reason you have to declare sockpuppets with the ArbCom is so they will know that you're a "legitimate" editor and can intercede to your benefit in the event a question is raised. (In practice such "intercession" tends to be more detrimental than beneficial.) The real reason is so they can have power over you, by virtue of holding nonpublic information about you can can be revealed to your detriment at an opportune moment.

Knowledge is power, after all, and above all else the ArbCom is about power.

Yes, but that contradicts Risker's assertions that (1) she knows there are socks afoot -- sorry -- but won't pull them out, and (2) that undeclared "alternate" accounts are okay (one assumes that no one knows about them, since they are undeclared.

Clearly, the policy on the number of accounts one can have is hazy and is only selectively enforced.

[Malleus]

What power does Arbcom have? All anyone who falls foul of Arbcom has to do is to set up a new account and, unlike Law, keep their mouth shut that they've done it. So Arbcom can at best cause some minor inconvenience.

It's hard for people to keep their mouths shut, though, especially since Wikipedia is, after all, a social networking site. And should one of the Investigators decide (rightly or wrongly) that you're a sockpuppet, they'll use the fact that you didn't declare with the ArbCom as part of the grounds to ban you.

Few people on Wikipedia behave in a reliably optimal manner. If they could, they'd probably be using that talents for something more profitable than futzing around on Wikipedia. The relatively few people who do know what they're doing, and are able to do it well, are not there to build an encyclopedia.

You're beginning to make me feel rather naive, but I'll press on regardless.

What social cache can be got from a web site where everyone is anonymous? Sounds to me like the imaginary friends that some children have.

[Kelly Martin]

Clearly, the policy on the number of accounts one can have is hazy and is only selectively enforced.

Exactly. To enforce it rigorously would diminish the power of individual members of the ArbCom. One of the greatest sources of power for ArbCom members is the privileged access to information that ArbCom members get, from which flows a great many opportunities to trade information for favors or to use it for extortion.

The ethics practiced by Wikipedia's "leadership" would make Richard Nixon blanch. Not surprising, given their role model, though.

What social cache can be got from a web site where everyone is anonymous? Sounds to me like the imaginary friends that some children have.

Not far from the truth. Many Wikipedians are socially challenged individuals, and for them their interactions on Wikipedia are about all the social contact they get. The anonymity of those interactions doesn't bother them; it may even appeal to them.

[A Horse With No Name]

Okay, so the mystery remains: who is this broad?

Knowledge is power, after all, and above all else the ArbCom is about power.

Well, God knows they have nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

"All Wikipedians have small penises. Even the female ones." - adopted from Steve Martin.

Verifiably false.

Good heavens ... I stand deflate corrected. Anyone for a game of "Pin the 'Tail' on the Donkey"?

I hope the poor girl in Africa who is going to change the world for having the sum of all these 'Wikipenia' is very enlightened by them.

One of the greatest sources of power for ArbCom members is the privileged access to information that ArbCom members get, from which flows a great many opportunities to trade information for favors or to use it for extortion.

What sort of privileged information are we talking about?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 13th October 2009, 2:11am

[Lar]

What social cache can be got from a web site where everyone is anonymous? Sounds to me like the imaginary friends that some children have.

People aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. There's a difference. You have a persona there. People recognise your words as coming from you even if they don't know who you actually are, and measure them against the reputation you've built up, and modify that reputation slightly.

Even if you're pseudonymous, there is egoboo in people caring what your pseudonym says. You may not be able to convince anyone in the Real World that you are a person to be reckoned with (or feared, or despised or whatever it was you were going for, consciously or subconsciously) but it's still an effect, and a powerful one.

But surely you knew this already, right?

[Jack Merridew]

What social cache can be got from a web site where everyone is anonymous? Sounds to me like the imaginary friends that some children have.

People aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. There's a difference. You have a persona there. People recognise your words as coming from you even if they don't know who you actually are, and measure them against the reputation you've built up, and modify that reputation slightly.

Even if you're pseudonymous, there is egoboo in people caring what your pseudonym says. You may not be able to convince anyone in the Real World that you are a person to be reckoned with (or feared, or despised or whatever it was you were going for, consciously or subconsciously) but it's still an effect, and a powerful one.

But surely you knew this already, right?

Hmm... Ya, words have a voice and that's something that's hard to mask. Some are adept at acting and that's a lot of what socks are about. Sussing out an editor per their 'voice' is rather inexact.

re Katerenka: I'm willing to go with a wait-and-see. The Le Grand Nobody idea, while interesting and worth exploring, would be just too good to be true. Sincerely, 'Jack'

[Cimorene]

What social cache can be got from a web site where everyone is anonymous? Sounds to me like the imaginary friends that some children have.

People aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. There's a difference. You have a persona there. People recognise your words as coming from you even if they don't know who you actually are, and measure them against the reputation you've built up, and modify that reputation slightly.

Even if you're pseudonymous, there is egoboo in people caring what your pseudonym says. You may not be able to convince anyone in the Real World that you are a person to be reckoned with (or feared, or despised or whatever it was you were going for, consciously or subconsciously) but it's still an effect, and a powerful one.

But surely you knew this already, right?

Hmm... Ya, words have a voice and that's something that's hard to mask. Some are adept at acting and that's a lot of what socks are about. Sussing out an editor per their 'voice' is rather inexact.

re Katerenka: I'm willing to go with a wait-and-see. The Le Grand Nobody idea, while interesting and worth exploring, would be just too good to be true. Sincerely, 'Jack'

No one of consequence was spot on with his comment:

Look, it's a ordinary boringly average user with a low edit count who decided that registering under a real name was a stupid thing to do. Lots of Wikipedians edit under pseudonyms, and when their real name is discovered, the appropriate reaction, barring some major malfeasance, is to ignore it, and to tell nosy Wikipedians to shut the hell up. So shut the hell up.

My old account was not very prolific or well known and the reasons for its abandonment are personal in nature and had nothing to do with the accounts standing on Wikipedia. I'm not A Nobody, or Flying Toaster or any other ban user trying to circumvent policy. I'm simply someone who wanted to start over, work on articles about English authors and help at DYK.

[Krimpet]

My old account was not very prolific or well known and the reasons for its abandonment are personal in nature and had nothing to do with the accounts standing on Wikipedia. I'm not A Nobody, or Flying Toaster or any other ban user trying to circumvent policy. I'm simply someone who wanted to start over, work on articles about English authors and help at DYK.

I'm satisfied by the evidence you aren't LGRDC; I apologize for making the accusation initially. (As I've mentioned before, when I play Internet cop it tends to become a comedy of errors. )

[EricBarbour]

My old account was not very prolific or well known and the reasons for its abandonment are personal in nature and had nothing to do with the accounts standing on Wikipedia. I'm not A Nobody, or Flying Toaster or any other ban user trying to circumvent policy. I'm simply someone who wanted to start over, work on articles about English authors and help at DYK.

Welcome to WR, Kat. We encourage you to check in occasionally, and don't be afraid to
participate. You'd be amazed at the wiki-messes that get fixed, because someone
posted it here first and someone else saw it, and logged into WP to do something about it. Granted,
a few WR regulars don't like that, but it is to be expected of an open forum (at least,
more open than anyplace on WP, on on WP IRC channels).

[Mackan]

The ostensible reason you have to declare sockpuppets with the ArbCom is so they will know that you're a "legitimate" editor and can intercede to your benefit in the event a question is raised. (In practice such "intercession" tends to be more detrimental than beneficial.) The real reason is so they can have power over you, by virtue of holding nonpublic information about you can can be revealed to your detriment at an opportune moment.

I was thinking today of an analogy to a teacher who leaves out a plate of cookies, tells the kids to have some, and then turns out the lights. But if you want more than one be sure to leave an explanation. Then the teacher goes to the infrared camera, but to look only where credible evidence is presented that someone broke the rule.

Good policy? My question would be, if you're so concerned about who has how many cookies, why did you turn out the lights?

[LaraLove]

As far as I'm aware, I'm the only Wikipedian to sport the WP tee-shirt.

And no one on WP can fill a t-shirt like Lara!

Ya right. If there's anything I fail at, it's that.

And no one on WP can fill a t-shirt like Lara!

Not true; not by a long shot.

ilu

Hmm... Ya, words have a voice and that's something that's hard to mask. Some are adept at acting and that's a lot of what socks are about. Sussing out an editor per their 'voice' is rather inexact.

re Katerenka: I'm willing to go with a wait-and-see. The Le Grand Nobody idea, while interesting and worth exploring, would be just too good to be true. Sincerely, 'Jack'

Welcome to WR, Jack.


I don't think alternate accounts matter if they're not being used to stack votes, manipulate consensus, avoid 3RR, or the like. If people want to start over, let 'em start over.

[Lar]

I'm satisfied by the evidence you aren't LGRDC; I apologize for making the accusation initially. (As I've mentioned before, when I play Internet cop it tends to become a comedy of errors. )

You and everybody else.

re Katerenka: I'm willing to go with a wait-and-see. The Le Grand Nobody idea, while interesting and worth exploring, would be just too good to be true. Sincerely, 'Jack'

Welcome to WR, Jack. Watch out for GbG, who can be a bit of a grump sometimes. Especially when he's right about stuff, which is far too often .

Oh, and remember what I told you about PMs.

[MZMcBride]

I don't think alternate accounts matter if they're not being used to stack votes, manipulate consensus, avoid 3RR, or the like. If people want to start over, let 'em start over.

To what end? Wikipedia is big, but people tend to stick to certain areas. A person registers Account A, makes comments on talk pages, etc. The same person decides to drop it in favor of Account B and happens to comment in the same areas and discussions. Is that misrepresenting reality? Should it matter? You could end up with talk pages containing discussions involving the same person, but not in a necessarily malicious sense. Or, does Account B have to ensure that every edit is to an area that Account A didn't overlap with.

As a site, Wikipedia has to decide whether or not it cares about alternate accounts (declared or undeclared) and then head in that particular direction. The current half-assed selective enforcement simply isn't cutting it. Personally, I'm in favor of assuming that most accounts are the same person and not caring. The Arbitration Committee (or at least a majority of it) seems to be taking a different path.

[CharlotteWebb]

To what end? Wikipedia is big, but people tend to stick to certain areas. A person registers Account A, makes comments on talk pages, etc. The same person decides to drop it in favor of Account B and happens to comment in the same areas and discussions. Is that misrepresenting reality? Should it matter?

Sorry but what does "reality" mean in this context?

You have to accept that the interests and viewpoints WP users express in the course of day-to-day editing (even if they use only one account, ever) will never proportionately represent humanity. This is because (a) most people don't edit, (b) some people will always be trolls and express interests and viewpoints they don't actually hold, and (c) many people who do edit consciously avoid material related to their actual interests and viewpoints because they're not really here to start a flame-war, (d) other, please explain, etc.

Yeah, I'd say it doesn't really matter in the majority of cases.

My old account was not very prolific or well known and the reasons for its abandonment are personal in nature and had nothing to do with the accounts standing on Wikipedia. I'm not A Nobody, or Flying Toaster or any other ban user trying to circumvent policy. I'm simply someone who wanted to start over, work on articles about English authors and help at DYK.

That's cool. Sorry I implied you might be the NNN.

[dogbiscuit]

As a site, Wikipedia has to decide whether or not it cares about alternate accounts (declared or undeclared) and then head in that particular direction. The current half-assed selective enforcement simply isn't cutting it. Personally, I'm in favor of assuming that most accounts are the same person and not caring. The Arbitration Committee (or at least a majority of it) seems to be taking a different path.

Which allows me to return to my theme of the week. Wikipedia guidelines are built on the premise that all but the most exceptional user is helpful and co-operative, and the reality is that this is just unrealistic.

Move to a position of healthy distrust and you build the rulebook in a different way. No need for convoluted AGF. Given that creating multiple accounts is trivial, without checking every pair of users with similar views in each and every debate; off-wki communication is impossible and inappropriate to police; helping out a mate is normally considered a good trait in the real world - so just assume that accounts are working together and work out systems that are not dependent on votes.

That would mean a real culture change. Clearly WMF are terrified that they might break things, but in fact you can keep a hierarchy with possibilities of promotion while still having some form of formal editorial oversight. For example, paid editors (in the publication sense) could identify that certain Wikipedians could be trusted with an oversight role themselves. So good writers get to be editors.

The policeman role needs to be severely curtailed, and I am sure, aside from blind vandalism, which could be reduced by flagged revisions anyhow, behavioural disputes would be marginalised by proper editorial control - edit warring over some nonsense assertion when He Who Must Be Obeyed will simply remove it before flagging any revisions would become a pointless activity.

[PirateSmackK]

Javert obviously wasn't his/her first account. ArchTransit/Aitias/..DougsTech or someone else playing games, it seems.