Wikipedia talk:Clean start/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page creation

Clean Start now has its own page where it can be more accurately documented. It always did sit uneasily at WP:SOCK, because apart from noting that a clean start is a legit use of a 2nd account, the "when it's allowed" and "how to do it" and privacy issues are not really main sock policy issues. As it was before, the "clean start" text not only added to the sock policy length in an off-topic manner, but also in trying to keep it short, it reduced clarity for people who needed to have clean start spelled out in more detail so they could know what it was, and was not.

In turn this move allows a somewhat more direct and simple explanation of its sock related issues at WP:SOCK. which may reduce confusion there.

Hopefully this helps. (Crossposted to both talk pages) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The page has solid support and spinning it off seems to me to make sense ... nevertheless, I'll hold off on guessing on which subcat this in until it's attracted more attention. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I had expanded the "clean start" statement at WP:SOCK, and then FT2 (and several others) have expanded it into a separate page. My initial motivation was to provide some guidance to good faith users who may have been of the impression that there is some inherent privacy protection connected to a clean start. This becomes somewhat problematic when a user who has made a clean start edits in such a way that it's fairly clear who they were before, or if they return to editing in an area that is sock-ridden. Unfortunately, there is little that we as a project can do to prevent those linkages from being made; the culture of transparency that is inherent in wiki-editing, with every edit recorded and with the constant vigilance for inappropriate use of multiple or alternate accounts, can often conflict with the appropriate desire to mitigate harassment or other off-wiki disruption of personal privacy. I don't have a good solution for this situation, although I have encountered it on at least half a dozen occasions in the last few months. Risker (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A definition, not a policy

What exactly makes this a policy? It looks like a definition, not a rule directed to administrators or editors. patsw (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It was originally part of an existing policy, WP:SOCK, and is being broken out separately because enough checkusers, oversighters, administrators and editors have had to address problems caused by editors whose expectations were unrealistic that we thought it would be more helpful to the community to address this on a separate page that can be linked to directly. In particular, there have been a fair number of editors who have been of the impression that they could make a clean start with a new account, return to exactly the same contentious editing areas or behavioural patterns, and that any link made by others to their prior account would be considered a "privacy" issue worthy of oversight, or that they would be immune to allegations of sockpuppetry. Neither is the case. In particular, if someone is changing account names for privacy reasons (e.g., they also used their original username on other sites, and connections had been made), a clean start will not resolve the issue if they continue to edit exactly as they had before the clean start. The connection between the old and new accounts will be obvious to those who have worked with the editor in the past, and those who notice the similarity shouldn't, in all fairness, be criticised or penalized for noticing this. Risker (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the policy entitled "Evasion of sanctions using a new account"? patsw (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Because editors with active sanctions aren't entitled to clean starts. –xeno^talk 16:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What about editors with an ongoing RfC/U? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Out of interest, is it possible for a user who has geniunely made a clean start, and was in good standing and has no intentions in deceiving the community, to somehow reapply for the more basic permissions on Wikipedia? I don't mean sysop or anything. Just autoconfirmed/reviewer etc. --Dorsal Axe 08:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This happens quite often, and it is unavoidable. The more basic permissions are handed out by a single admin, based on their observations. I frequently surprise people by giving reviewer,revert,etc rights to people I've never interacted with before. By that stage, they can't say: take those rights away, for I am unclean.

OTOH, an RFA is the candidate putting themselves forward for the community to consider. Omitting key facts, like a long block log or prior arbcom sanctions, is an active decision by the candidate to lie by omission.

Also, if the candidate was really in good standing (they seldom admit that they were not), and the reason for the new start was real and undue harassment, I think they should be able to seek sysop rights again. But I would like a more rigorous process around this; e.g. a group such as arbcom could be asked to review the candidate's history prior to the RfA.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Replace Strongly recommended with must?

Per this Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010#Disclosure_of_former_and_alternate_accounts thread, there are definitely editors who would like to tighten the strong recommendation for RFA and other candidates to inform Arbcom and make it mandatory. I'd like to tighten it to: "If you have a secret account such as from a Clean start, and that account has ever been blocked or banned, then before standing for RFA, RFB, Arbcom or similar posts you must declare the account either to Arbcom or to the community. If you are declaring such an account to Arbcom, then you may only run without publicly disclosing the existence of the secret account if they agree that it need not be publicly declared". ϢereSpielChequers 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's going to be proposed, give an option for all accounts and not just those with "history". A past history of repeat warnings that never rose to the level of a block may be significant too. Maybe this would be a second option to approach the issue:

Positions that are based on discussion of your entire editing history (RFA, RFB, ArbCom, CU/OS and the like) usually require scrutiny of your entire past editing history, under all accounts and IPs. if you apply for these roles you will be expected to disclose any past accounts and IPs used in the past. If an IP was only used for accidental logged-out edits or occasional use with no relevant or contentious "history" concealed disclosure is not required. Also if any accounts or IPs are private or sensitive you are not prevented from running, but you must disclose them to ArbCom and confirm you have done so.

You may only withhold past accounts and IPs if ArbCom agree that they need not be publicly declared. IPs will usually be agreed private unless there is a track record for that IP relevant to the matter. ArbCom may summarize any significant issues for the community if an account name is not disclosed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a practical issue with IPs, as editors may not have kept track of all their IP edits. It is realtively easy for me as my home IP is fairly stable. But others have IPs that change with each session. ϢereSpielChequers 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the two proposals above, neither of them are consistent with the requirements for Arbitration Committee candidates of the draft arbitration policy or of the 2010 elections. I've updated the policy to reflect this requirement. I've left the wording of the admins and functionaries part unchanged; that still might need to be revisited. Best, Skomorokh 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In principal I think it wrong to change such a deal retrospectively, especially as we haven't had a problem with a "clean start" candidate. The risk of this approach is that it gives people the comfort of having done something whilst ignoring the Sockpuppeteers who have caused problems and will ignore this as they have ignored current policy. Yes we have had problems with abusive sockpuppeteers standing for arbcom, why not do something like CU checks targeted at them instead of this change? ϢereSpielChequers 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your objection to the wording. At the election talkpage, it seemed you primary concern was inconsistency between policy and practice, which is what this solves. The previous wording would have left the judgement of whether or not the candidate was compliant with policy not in the hands of the community, where it should reside, or even in the hands of ArbCom, where it must if privacy is at issue, but in the hands of the candidate themselves. Self-regulation of editors attempting reform is not, I don't think, a tenable strategy. Respectfully, Skomorokh 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the right venue to discuss a change to cleanstart, so thanks for coming here. I agree with you that self regulation of editors attempting reform is not a tenable strategy, that's why I'd like to change our CU policies and screen all arb candidates. But Clean start editors are not necessarily editors attempting reform - some of them are editors whose previous account was a victim of harassment or outing, on the Arb election page you gave an example of the sort of past problem you were trying to address, but your amended wording would have no effect on candidates who are already knowingly in breach of policy. It would have an effect on candidates who were harassed off the site and took the cleanstart deal. ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, with you for most of that. But why shouldn't editors who have convinced themselves of the fact that their clean start was because of harassment by others and want to stand for ArbCom not have to disclose their prior identity to ArbCom? Because ArbCom doesn't always share the perspective of innocent editors having been hounded. Given a choice between the two, I'd rather not rely on the editor's own judgement of themselves, if you see what I am getting at. Skomorokh 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but Cleanstart already says "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions", and in that particular case there was a 6 month editing restriction. I agree that a disadvantage of the current wording is that we have to do this at least somewhat on trust, however that is equally true of any proposal that doesn't involve CU or greater use of identification to the office. ϢereSpielChequers 09:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was just an example. We can easily think of a hypothetical problematic editor, who if they started over and became an arbitrator before being revealed, the community would be justly outraged at. Note that ArbCom appointees must identify to the WMF as things stand, and CU only goes back a few months so would not be much help here. Skomorokh 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this goes far enough. Suggested new language in addition to the above:

• Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
• Have you ever participated in homosexual activities? Are you secretly turned on by the fundraising banner with Jimbo's soulful looks at the camera?
• Are you secretly a Muslim?
• Can you tell which one is real coffee and which is Folgers crystals?

We can't let just anybody be an admin here, we need to root out this vast conspiracy before it destroys us! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This is needless instruction creep, and has undesirable consequences. For example: You once got blocked on a new account, for "disruptiveness"... because you argued over content with an admin on a power trip... five or six years ago... when you were not only a newbie, but a kid. Now you can't even remember the name of the account. So you both "can't" and "must" disclose the account?
  When we write rules like this, we really need to remember that Wikipedia is likely to last for decades, and rules really do need to take into account "When I was ten... but now that I'm 30..." This rule doesn't do that.
  Furthermore, how the heck are you going to enforce it? It's not like we can checkuser every candidate since Wikipedia started to make sure they're not lying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not to mention,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and  CheckUser is not a crystal ball --Tothwolf (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have no idea which IP's I have inadvertently edited under from here, or deliberately making a quick edit from elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
  

Good point, I have kept track of some of my IP edits, but I'm pretty sure I made a few IP edits from PCs other than my home broadband one. Also I may have made an IP edit or two before I first created an account, and I had no idea at the time that I needed to keep a record of that IP. ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the Strongly Worded version again. We may at some point see consensus to abolish Cleanstart, or at least to require editors to wait longer before running an RFA. But I don't see consensus here that Cleanstart candidates can never run for admin. At most people would want them to wait say two years after the former account retires. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of discussion about Clean start

For anyone interested, there's a discussion taking place about the consistency of application regarding the Right to vanish and Clean start policies. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#ArbCom support for Right to vanish and Clean start. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I've proposed some changes to this guideline to address concerns that it is misused (either intentionally or not) at User:Hersfold/Leaving Wikipedia. This proposal encompasses a rewrite of Right to Vanish/Courtesy vanishing as well as WP:Clean start. In summary, this proposal:

• Unifies acceptable means of leaving your account onto one page - simple retirement, clean start, and vanishing
• Limits vanishing only to cases where an editor is attempting to escape demonstrable harassment either on- or off-Wikipedia.
• For clean start and vanishing, formalizes the process to prevent misuse by:
  • Outlining more clearly who is eligible through a set of criteria
  • Requiring communication with the Arbitration Committee to ensure that there is oversight of those undergoing this process
  • Outlining what may and may not be done while clean start-ed or vanished, and penalties for violating that

I'm hoping these points will resolve many of the problems currently evident with this system, but of course comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: To keep discussion in one place, please leave comments/questions/etc. at Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing#Proposed_changes. Thank you.

Needs copyediting

There are quite a few muddy phrases in this policy. If it's not obvious which, I can cite them here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently added "usually to avoid a negative reputation associated with the old account"

Isn't this assuming too much? The few cases I've seen involved claims of WP:HARASSMENT as well. Perhaps a formulation that doesn't assign blame by default, such as "usually to avoid old disputes", might be better suited? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Though its hard to cover all the reasons one might want a fresh start in a brief sensible sentence. I'll think about it. Thatcher 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RFA

It's not a "radical change in policy", it is an observed fact, and the current RFC is not the only example. Arbcom can not grant permission for an RFA, in the sense that permission means the ability to do something without suffering an otherwise consequence, because Arbcom just doesn't have that power. Permission means, in the case of RFA, "nothing bad will happen to you if your old account is identified." It is impossible for Arbcom or anyone else to guarantee this (and foolish to even pretend to try) because Arbcom can not and has never pretended to speak for over 30,000 active editors. If you say, "Users are strongly advised to notify Arbcom" then what does that actually accomplish? It means that really really bad users will be prevented from running. But really really bad users would not be stupid enough to notify Arbcom in the first place. It means that really really good users will get a pass, but they would also likely get a pass from the community if their identity is later disclosed. And middling users will get a pass, and will then get crucified later. Why is "don't do it" less sensible than "notify someone who can't doing anything about it."? Thatcher 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur, the "candidate notifies ArbCom, arbitrator issues vague assurances" model is flawed and failed and cannot continue as is. Skomorokh 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet the RFA in question got 85% support, and half the opposes were about CSD tagging not the Cleanstart. Clearly lots of people in the current RFC have concerns, but the specific concerns are all over the place. If there was a similar scenario in future and the candidate said they'd had a cleanstart then I suspect they'd have trouble unless they could say that they hadn't edited the previous account in 24 months. But it would be a mistake to over react based on one divisive RFC. How about we put in a recommendation that if people don't want to declare a prior account they wait 24 months? That's one of the things being mooted over on the talkpage of that RFC. The idea being that few people oppose about something they know about from over 12 months ago, so 24 months would be enough to accept the things that someone doesn't want to fess up to. ϢereSpielChequers 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time an editor has been granted permissions by the community before their misbehaviour under prior accounts has surfaced, and time operating new accounts has not been a decisive factor in those instances. The inability to anticipate what the community might find problematic is precisely why we cannot rely on a model of arbitrator-endorsed returns. Skomorokh 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Couple of points. One, policy is not made by wise admins (or even wise ex-checkusers and auditors) sitting around thinking deep thoughts. Policy is made by watching what actually happens, then writing it down so the next poor sucker has some warning. We could say, for example, you can run for RFA if there is at least an X month break between accounts and your new account is at least Y months old. But that's wishful thinking, and really is trying to force a policy change on other users. Policy is a written description of what usually happens, not a statement of what should happen. Fact is, users who get admin with a second account usually get crucified when the first account is discovered, whether or not they persuaded a secret-keeper to vouch for them at their RFA. Second, the current RFC against Fae is not going to decide anything. The RFC has no power to force him to resign, and in fact there is no mechanism all for that. You can't even use the RFC as a springboard for an arbitration case because Arbcom won't deadmin him unless he has bad actions as an admin with his current account. The only way to get Fae deadminned is either to persuade the bureaucrats to do it based on the "under a cloud" principle, or to beat the crap out of him long enough and hard enough that he cries Uncle. But what bearing does that have on this "policy" (read as: a description of how things usually work)? Bottom line: if you run for admin with a second account and the first account gets discovered, your fate will be decided by how many friends you have and how many enemies you made, not by the level of your secret-keeper. Thatcher 04:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to sidetrack things too much, but while policy should be rooted in best practices, it is by definition normative, not descriptive. The dodge of "I was only documenting practice" only goes so far; there is a burden to establish what kinds of behaviour the community expects of an editor. If nothing is prohibited, anything is permitted. Skomorokh 04:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a significant difference. If doing X gets 50 editors manning the battlements on both sides, X is probably not a "best practice." Thatcher 04:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In the most recent case the editor ran for RFA within 12 months of their RFC, there was some concern in the RFA that the previous RFC could be as little as 12 months ago, and one of the more collaborative threads in the RFC has an opponent from the RFA saying that they wouldn't have opposed if the candidate had said they'd undergone Cleanstart over 24 months ago after an RFC. The message I take from that is that if the community doesn't know the details then allow an extra 12 months before the community is prepared to accept those details as time expired. I'm personally more tolerant than that, but we could have a warning to people not to run at RFA without declaring any account that they've edited with in the last 24 months. That would still mean that you could go through Cleanstart. But changing the policy to say that Cleanstart is incompatible with adminship would IMHO be a big change that I doubt has consensus - even among those who opposed the RFA or would support desysop in the current RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 15:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read my change? I said that it is best practice to disclose the old account (undeniably true) and that if you don't disclose and are later discovered, you are in for a world of pain (also undeniably true). I never wrote that clean start is incompatible with adminship. In the version you cobbled together, you say it is recommended that nominees disclose in confidence to a secret-keeper. Why? The secret-keeper can not protect you if you are later discovered and the community decides that you were an inappropriate candidate, or that insufficient time had passed. Your version implies that disclosure has some positive benefit, but does not actually state what that benefit is. Even the 24 month window you are discussing at the RfC has nothing to do with disclosure. Everything in my version is undeniably true. What's the problem? Or alternatively, what is the benefit of leaving in the false suggestion that a secret-keeper can protect you? Thatcher 18:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read your wording. This isn't about a "secret keeper" protecting someone, it is about having a trusted editor confirm some key facts about an undisclosed account. Now I wouldn't dispute that it is preferable that people don't go through Cleanstart, and that they publicly declare all accounts when they run for RFA, but some people won't want to do that, and in my experience the community has been willing to allow Cleanstart candidates to run at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 01:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Or, let me re-phrase it simply. Who benefits from leaving the old version, and why? Thatcher 19:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you read WereSpielChequers' positions in the Fæ RfC, the answer might be obvious. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Since that particular individual has been through RFA and has had their Cleanstart dtetected, a change to the policy has no effect on them. I don't know of anyone who has been through cleanstart and is thinking of running an RFA in the near future. In fact I don't know of any cleanstarts that aren't publicly known of on wiki. But we have a declining number of admins and RFA has almost ground to a halt, I would be very surprised if there weren't some cleanstart candidates out there thinking that they might at some point run at RFA, and they would benefit from having a realistic route that left RFA policy compatible with the idea of Cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 01:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The old account must be clearly discontinued

What does that involve exactly? Could it be more explicitly stated? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• The less you edit with the former account the better. Marking it as retired is probably safest, but there is a risk of being overly prescriptive here. Is there a specific change that you would suggest? ϢereSpielChequers 06:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• The less the better? You can't edit with your former account at all, that would be sockpuppetry. It should probably be changed to something along the lines of "no edits can be made from your former account". Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would anyone consider it out of order if a "retired" account came back to remove some stuff from their user page, put U1 on their sandbox or answer a copyright query on a file they'd uploaded? All those are things that the new account can't do without exposing the Cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Fae-targeted changes

I think that the changes made in February to match the "reality" of the Fae RFC were wrong, and I don't think there was enough discussion or consensus to justify a text that seems to encourage sleuthing as a method to "break" a clean start. Clean starts weren't supposed to be broken unless you kept your old account an absolute, perfect secret. I want a revert to the January 30 version. This is under discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Claims that linking accounts is outing ignore CLEANSTART policy - that is the only reason I haven't reverted to that version already. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the revert back to January 30, removing Thatcher's and WereSpielChecquers' substantial revisions. I would suggest that if you want changes this sweeping we should have an actual RfC, as this talk page apparently is not widely attended. Wnt (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Now get a WP:CONSENSUS for your bold revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Humm, reverts are rarely bold per WP:BRD. The original changes are. I'm not certain that duration is enough to claim consensus on a rather unwatched page. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit of mine that was reverted was in itself a partial revert and I believe we've gone back further. But one change is the removal of the sentence "If you want to become an admin without revealing your former account it is best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check your former account." I would like to restore that sentence as I think it constitutes sound and uncontentious advice. Does anyone object and if so why? ϢereSpielChequers 17:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems 100% reasonable to me. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with the reversion of these changes. I believe the current version better reflects how the community views returning users and also takes into account how the broader internet community has grown in the last few years to place the burden of maintaining anonymity on the individual. For example, I think the advice of disclosure in confidence to a functionary before resuming editing in an area of prior controversy would not just be seen negatively as stated in the reverted version, but would result in community action against the functionary for maintaining the confidence. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you objecting to my proposal to restore the sentence "If you want to become an admin without revealing your former account it is best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check your former account."? ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)