Fri 1st July 2011, 5:08pm
from the discussion:
I think we need to not be so legalistic about it. As long as someone is contributing positively and not using socks to game the system in some way, who cares? People get threatened in real life because of something they say or do on Wikipedia - if they want to "cool off" for awhile, there's no intrinsic harm in that. The harm is when they use socks to create a false consensus or to harass previous opponents or some such thing. --B (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
B is expressing the old-timer position. Actual wiki practice moved on to "a ban is a ban, a rule violation is a rule violation." At some point someone should have the cojones to deprecate WP:Ignore all rules
My sock EnergyNeutral (T-C-L-K-R-D)
was making helpful contributions, facilitating consensus, working interactively with other editors, albeit in an area where I'd been banned, and when I was checkusered, apparently spontaneously, by an arbitrator and blocked, an edit to a BLP was reverted (by JzG) as having made by a sock. It was reverted back by an admin who was actually one of my nemeses as Abd.
No, now, being a sock of a banned user is a Very Big Deal, all by itself. No evidence of misbehavior needed. No evidence of "harm" required. Socking is itself considered harm, which is preposterous, making sense only to heavy drinkers of the Kool-Aid.
By the way, there is another acknowledged WP sock of mine. An extra point to anyone who identifies this sock and adds it to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Abd
Finding my unacknowledged socks is going to be a tad more difficult. Some have already apparently escaped checkuser attention, though I obviously can't be sure of that. They would come up as "probable" if examined closely, but finding them as a needle in a haystack would be the problem. Others would come up as "unlikely," and some as "not related."
None of these accounts have been actually disruptive, other than insofar as any block/ban evasion is disruptive.