[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[David Goodman]

actually, I think the policy ought to be that if one is running a
sock, and either account is significantly disruptive, all accounts
connected with it should be permanently banned in all cases.. Running
a disruptive account is a gross violation of basic expectations.
Nobody can possibly do it for good reasons. An editor (viewed as a
human, not a login name) who acts in a way so contrary to the basic
expectations of the community should not be editing--and least not
until full public disclosure and a consensus to allow another start.

I see no reason why established accounts should get any special
consideration.--the longer an abusive account is run, the worse it is.

The only question requiring discretion is whether or not an account is
actually abusive. Unless it clearly is, then there is  reason for
private action to tell the  user to abandon one account or the other,
and to be advised to edit less disruptively. But running two accounts,
one of which is disruptive, is no better than running one disruptive
account, with the added charge of being deceloptice about it. As the
degree of disruption will not be known before the checkuser, such
checks must continue to be private. But certainly the person must
always be told. Otherwise it is a secret inquisition based perhaps on
anonymous evidence.


On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

> That's correct. Actually, there *is* a presumption against *anyone*
> being checked, unless there are grounds to suspect abuse. Being a
> long-term contributor is a possible reason to discount such
> suspicion, but, under some circumstances is irrelevant. There may be,
> and indeed I have some reason to suspect that there are, long-term
> contributors who have operated long-term sock accounts, carefully,
> using standard detection evasion methods.
>
> There are four possibilities, first two: main account is not
> disruptive, sock account -- I'll define this as the newer one -- is.
> The reverse happens: main account was disruptive, sock account isn't.
> In both these cases there is some question as to whether or not we
> should bother with sock detection. The argument for detection and
> action is that if we merely deal with an block the disruptive
> account, there is a risk, then, that the other account will take up
> disruptive activity -- or will create a new sock, having learned that
> a disruptive sock can be created -- or a nondisruptive sock
> maintained -- without risk to the editors access. And the argument
> against detection is a common one: "Why are you bothering with this
> SSP report, the account isn't disruptive!" Frankly, I don't see a
> clear reason to prefer one of these arguments over the other, hence
> the circumspection that is described below.
>
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG