Wikipedia talk:Clean start

Pending sanctions

A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account.

It seems to me that what you might call "pending sanctions" should be addressed. If you stop editing under a cloud, and you make a clean start (and anyone notices), then the typical reaction is outrage. I think we might want to copy WP:VANISH's notion of limiting this to users in good standing. My reason for this is to make the written policy line up with the community's actual practice, and thereby prevent people from getting smacked for having believed that there were no landmines here.

Perhaps a mention of discussions at RFC/U or AN that ended because you announced your retirement? I don't think that we want people to assume that any old talk-page warning counted for this purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is the responsibility of whoever would place those sanctions to do so, if they are to count that way. If they simply abandon their efforts, then someone who leaves pending sanctions might have been sanctioned, might not have been, and I would say innocent until proven guilty. As we saw in the Ash case, the attempt to claim "a cloud" existed after the fact turned out to be an effective persecution tactic, but it was also an extremely divisive one, more lynching than policy in my opinion. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Forbid clean start to previously sanctioned users?

Currently the policy forbids a clean start only to those users who are currently under sanctions. Should this be extended to all users who have been previously sanctioned? Or to some previously sanctioned users in certain circumstances? Should ArbCom have the authority to deny a clean start if in the opinion of the Committee that the clean start would not be in the interest of the community? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In one sense Arbcom can already do this, Cleanstart is not available to anyone under an active block or sanction, so if Arbcom wants to sanction an individual by denying them the right to cleanstart they can do so. Otherwise this is a similar proposal to WhatamIdoing's one before. An Active Ban or block is a high bright line. How do you operate a lower bright line without it being as low as any warning? There is also the issue that we judge the failure of Cleanstart by its failures as the successes are by definition invisible. I don't know whether the failures are a small minority or a clear majority of the clean start scenarios, and I doubt that anyone else can know that either. My suspicion or concern is that the Cleanstart problems are closely associated with RFA or at least contentious areas such as policy discussions and AFDs. The last time we had an Arb vet the prior account of an RFA candidate the result was not entirely a happy one, and I say that as one who supported that RFA and don't regret that support. I'm not convinced that the community would buy a repeat scenario. Perhaps one solution would be to say that Cleanstart candidates are not allowed to run an RFA until at least two years after the last edit of their prior account, and not allowed to participate in AFDs and RFAs until at least 3 months after the last edit by their prior account. That would not inconvenience goodfaith editors who were happy to edit in mainspace. It would mean that anyone considering a Cleanstart as a route to adminship should realise that they would take longer to make admin than if they stayed with their current account. ϢereSpielChequers 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, an alternate bright line could well be "a previously community- or arbcom-imposed sanction", which seems much more in line to me with what the community expects. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you including ones that have lapsed or ended? If so I can see the logic, but consider that a statute of limitations should apply. My preference as I said before is for a ban on Cleanstart candidates running at RFA within two years of their last edit under their previous account. If instead we tell people that they can't start the cleanstart process until x months after their sanction has ended then I'm not sure we are being realistic as to what cleanstart is for. I see cleanstart as a way to give editors a break from a situation that they find difficult, and if we can persuade them to keep editing under their old account but discontinue the problematic behaviour then we should do so. But we should remember that life is complex, we can't neatly divide cleanstart candidates into those with privacy concerns and those with a chequered editing career that they want to put behind them, some as we well know fall into both camps. My view is that the message of cleanstart should be, serve out any outstanding blocks or sanctions, avoid that which caused problems, but before running a fresh RFA then you need to edit uncontentiously for longer than if you had continued with your old account but turned over a new leaf. If you consider the RFA that had such toxic repercussions, IMHO it was the subsequent revelation that the old account was more recent than we had thought at the time of the RFA that tipped things over the edge. We knew at the time of the RFA that the previous account was problematic, and we didn't know there were also privacy concerns, in my view that case could have been better handled if the extant rule had been don't run until 24 months after your previous accounts final edit. But the cleanstart itself wasn't really the issue - as he'd refoccussed his editing almost no-one would have minded if he'd continued editing in areas removed from the problematic one. ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have started a Criteria section which clarifies the situation as regards the current wording within the policy. What is needed now is something to fill in the area between the two extremes outlined. We don't need to have a firm rule for each situation between the two extremes, but outlining some kind of procedure and/or common practice would be useful - such as: "Users who have been previously community or ArbCom sanctioned must apply to AN or ArbCom for consensus on having a clean start, and in all cases must inform ArbCom of their new account. Users who were blocked for 24 hours five years ago for 3RR may be allowed a clean start, while users who were blocked within 12 months for abusing multiple accounts may be denied a clean start." And how about: "Any user may be denied a clean start if in the opinion of the Arbitration Committee the clean start would not be in the interest of the community." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm happy with the idea that cleanstart candidates need to go to Arbcom if they run an RFA within x months of the final edit of their former account. I'm also fine with the idea that Arbcom can sanction specific editors by not allowing them a future Cleanstart. I'm not happy with changing cleanstart to require that anyone who invokes it first has to inform Arbcom. Even if Arbcom didn't have a somewhat leaky history, this seems counterintuitive and sets a trap for editors. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• No this is a dumb idea, (added: see below) there is way too much pain on Wikipedia over old slights and it's been getting worse over time. If someone is a long term problem then they may need a long term ban. Otherwise I even suggested on Elen of the Road's talk page that all blocks automatically be erased from the person's block log 6 months after the unblock, if the person hasn't been re-blocked in the intervening interval. Think of all the bullshit that would have (maybe) prevented with Giano, Malleus, etc. Again in the case where someone causes serial problems significant enough over long periods that new incidents trigger institutional memories (and diffs pointing to old discussions etc.) then fine. Otherwise, if the memories are faded enough that it's water under the bridge, then forgiving and forgetting is the best for everyone concerned. The proposed cleanstart change is in the wrong direction.

  What I would say about cleanstart is that someone shouldn't be allowed to just abandon an account and switch to a new one right away. They should have to stop editing from the old account at least a month before beginning to use the new one. If someone is mired in enough drama to want an identity change, then taking a break from editing is probably healthy for them anyway. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Re above: the above comments are directed at the broader form of the proposal. To clarify: it's fine if arbcom denies someone a clean start based on careful consideration that doing so is in the project's best interest in the specific situation. As per Werespielchequers, it's a sanction in its own right, that arbcom can already do. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes and no. Yes to allowing ArbCom to forbid people if they believe it to be in the best interests of the community to not allow someone a clean start. No to a blanket ban on clean starts for previously sanctioned users. Ideally, people would realise they have made mistakes, and a clean start is just that: a way for them to start again. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think we need to be very careful. If we ignore the concept of "serial restarters" for the moment, then we are faced with two facts:
  1. Anyone who takes it into their head to restart can almost certainly do it regardless of the rules, provided they can avoid their previous conflicts.
  2. We are better off having someone constructively editing than being involved in conflict, or not editing at all.

Therefore it seems to me that the policy as written is good, as far as it goes, and indeed I would consider loosening it somewhat.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

• I agree with Rich Farmbrough, policy here should reflect reality. If an editor successfully pulls off a clean start, we will at most notice they are not a new editor, but should have no idea what their previous account was. The only way the proposed change would work would either to be to conduct checkusers on all such accounts to see who they previously were, or to smack them with an extra stick later if their clean start ends up failing. Unless we amend checkuser practice to allow checks of such accounts, this policy would only end up being punitive rather then preventative. (We may seriously want to consider such a change to checkuser practice, but this doesn't seem like the place for such a discussion) Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not big on the entire concept of Clean Start, personally. In my ideal world, every person wishing to edit at WP would have to do real name registration and would have one WP-name with one "WP-name-alt" and multiple "WP-name-bot" accounts allowed. The WP name could be changed as desired, but all subsequent names should be centrally and permanently linked. We do not need to be losing problematic editors into the hubbub, we need to keep track of them. Additionally, it's about time for us to realize that IP editing is useful only to vandals, trolls, and banned editors. Very little good has ever come of IP editing and the amount of time sunk each month into fixing the vandalism and terrible editing by IP accounts boggles the mind. Within the context of the current proposal, I support it as far as it goes — maximum limitations upon Clean Start are fine with me. Name changes to turn over a new leaf are also fine with me, but that information should be linked. Happy 2013 to all. — Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA /// Carrite (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You might like Citizendium better than Wikipedia, since it follows the types of policies you want. Most people apparently don't, however.[1] 67.119.3.248 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you trying to prove my point about trolling, or what? Carrite (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• • See also this about IP contributions. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• There can't be a definite policy regarding this as context, not a rigid maxim, is key. Certain situations should result in the granting of a clean start, while others should never; Arbcom should be the final arbiter (fittingly enough) in such matters, and should base decisions on examinations of the relevant editing history and other circumstances. dci | TALK 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  If you make Arbcom the final arbiter of cleanstarts then how would you do that without requiring anyone considering a cleanstart to first apply to Arbcom? That might work for contentious editors, but it wouldn't work for editors ditching their old account due to privacy concerns; And it is those editors who we want to feel most comfortable using Cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm generally uncomfortable with the concept of notifying Arbcom of a clean start. The whole point of a clean start is that no one knows who you are, and a banned editor is, indeed, able to return and achieve the good graces of the community if he successfully puts behind him all the behaviours that got him in trouble the first time around. I know that I have played whack-a-mole with several sockpuppeteers that apparently vanished. If they actually left, fine. If they have so successfully mended their ways that I cannot detect them any more, also fine. If Arbcom wants to accept clean start requests from blocked and banned users, I think that they also have a responsibility to monitor the editors and block them if they return to any behaviour that caused the original sanction. Clean start is supposed to be a clean start, not a fresh bite at the apple.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the idea of clean start is just to take on board the lessons of experience, and use them to stay out of conflict going forward. Vanishing below the threshold of detectability is different and much harder. You'd have to quit most every topic you were previously active in, even if you weren't in any controversies in those topics, diminishing the contributions you can make if you were knowledgeable in those areas. That shouldn't be expected of clean starters. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Surely the majority of clean starts are to people whom have had sanctions? Besides, where's the cut-off? You can't have a clean start for having a 24 hour block for breaking WP:3RR a couple of years previously? Or if you've been accidentally blocked, then unblocked? (that's still a sanction, after all.) I'd say that the current setup for this is probably best - CheckUser can always find someone who is misbehaving after they return, unless their style completely changes, after all. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would say that this may be a reasonable guide:
    1. An overturned sanction (such as an acidental block, as mentioned by Lukeno94) shouldn;t count against you;
    2. A user must wait an appropriate amount of time given the overall duration of the sanctions (a single 3RR block would probably require waiting a fw days, but many of them may require several months)
    3. Certain issues (such as sockpuppetry) may mean that you can't gp for a clean start regardless of the time since the end of the sanctions.
    4. A user who went for a clean start may have restrictions for RFAing; and all ARBCOM candidates must declare all their previous accounts, even if they've CLEANSTARTed.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• What Rich Farmbrough said. ARBCOM has all the authority it needs, and banning anyone ever sanctioned for anything from ever doing a clean start a) defeats the purpose of clean start and b) guarantees nothing but an increase in sockpuppetry. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the user actually follows the clean start procedure and manages to avoid causing the same types of problems that led to them previously being sanctioned I fail to see what harm there is in it. if they don't manage to do that they won't have actually made a clean start at all, so I can't say I,support this idea at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've got a point to make about those who think everyone should use their real names. I would rather not use my real name for all and sundry to see on something as globally visible as Wikipedia - and I know for a fact that there are people I know in real life, or people who know of me, who would constantly go through and destroy the work I've done (my surname is not a common one, so I would be easily found). Besides, my pseudonym has my first name, Luke, in it. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Just looking at the proposal, and not reading any of the discussion above, I am presently of the view that to eternally block a potential editor due to past discressions is a bit much. We are not talking about punishment for a serious crime such as murder, rape, assault and battery, etc. We are talking about editting wikipedia; if someone has returned and wants to positively contribute to the project I will keep with WP:AGF and give the editor the benifit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Any non-constructive contributions can be reverted, and is an easy enough thing to do. Therefore, I 'oppose this proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We've seen this community's propensity for witchhunts. This will encourage more of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - I would like a clean-start, but have been illegitimately disallowed one by Arbcom because I have only recently been unbanned. From my position it is clear that giving me a cleanstart would be beneficial to Wikipedia, as I would be more comfortable editing under a different account, and none of my edits since being unbanned have been disruptive. The proposed solution is problematic because it treats users under no sanctions as if they are still being sanctioned. Simone 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. Once sanctions have expired, they've expired. The existing policy already addresses issues like returning to previous editing topics, scrutinized topics, RFA, and the like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. What, you'd have them wear a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives? If this proposal were instituted, sanctions would never truly expire. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't object to a brief time limit like "If your old account was blocked, then you can't do a clean start until at least three months after that block expired". I don't like the idea of reaching back to five-year-old blocks, or even one-year-old blocks, especially since a few blocks were rather dubiously placed. (Even 99% accuracy in blocking leaves a lot of room for errors.) What we don't want is someone getting blocked a lot and then saying, "This escalating blocking stuff is inconvenient, so I'll 'clean start' and pretend I'm new, so that they'll go back to nice warnings and very short blocks." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Exponentially escalating blocks are a disease, as are sanctions that demand that editors identified as problematic suddenly become perfect WikiAngels. We should always recognize that an editor who has worked on Wikipedia in such a way as to not be completely and permanently banned is an asset; therefore, he should never be inferior to a fresh edit. I smell the same cult of youth bullshit here that tells corporations to avoid experienced workers in favor of someone out of college they think has a "bright future" (until he fouls it up). We should allow any editor to cleanstart, and if that undermines the exponential disease, that is not a bug but a feature. There are enough places in the world where people start off all young and full of hope, only to learn that every wrong word, every careless divulgence is another permanent brand made upon them until society tells them that for all they've learned and done they are completely useless and ought to go off somewhere and blow their brains out. Wikipedia doesn't have to be yet another one of these places - free of worldly matters like any salary for our editors, we can choose adopt the video-gamer's fantasy that people level up, not down. Where adminship is concerned, my feeling is that it would be acceptable to require cleanstarted editors to wait a year - provided we also ask other new editors to wait a year. Why not? Do we have a shortage of Wikipedians who have been here that long? But it would make more sense to make up a sort of checklist, a "course", of Wikipedia functions that a person should accomplish, and those seeking adminship should go through and prove competence at each of these functions, and once the course is completed, however long that takes, then they can go for it. Part of the course should be to effectively mediate difficult disputes. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose denying cleanstart to once-sanctioned editors whose sanctions expired. It's difficult to parse some middle road where cleanstart's okay for inconsequentially blocked editors (like a single 24 hour edit-war cool off block) but deny it to an hardcase (say an editor that has serially harassed and outed or launched racist personal attacks but whose blocks nonetheless somehow expired) it just gets too complicated, because where do you draw the line. The person who referenced witch-hunts above, oh I agree with that. Yet, if SilkTork really wants to manage the past rulebreakers better, the answer might be to break the policy in half, say WP:CLEANSTART (R)eform and WP:CLEANSTART (N)o-fault, and then try the changes at WP:CLEANSTART (R). Last, I'm in favor of a *much more stringent* cleanstart policy for would-be admins and arbs, perhaps starting with the minimum if opaque acknowledgement that a cleanstart has occurred, at the userpage and RFA. This is Colton Cosmic. PS: Decent admin, check out my case. I'm blocked for socking, didn't do it. If you get the impression my case has been fairly addressed, I assure you that it's not been. Acknowledge the theoretical possibility of justifiable block evasion and don't believe the hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.14.182 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

New line in What "clean start" is not

I BOLDly added a line to expressly discourage people from abusing the Clean Start process. This addition is not new policy, it's just a summary of existing text found throughout the rest of the document, particularly the long "Editing after a clean start" section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this edit. If it is a summary of the other sections, it lacks some nuances. If it repeated them precisely, it would be unnecessary. The two items in that section refer to changing username and oversighting private information. Really, this is more a "see also" section. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have followed up with another edit, [2], which converts this whole section into an About note. To keep that note concise I removed a few details about the alternate processes (i.e. that changing username reattributes deleted contributions) - these are explained at the target articles and don't seem needed here. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement, definitional decisions that need making

I spent some time renovating the guidance section. No change in meaning really and it was solid writing before, but it's now a bit more accessible, and I did accentuate a couple things that previous writers at this page have implied. Namely A) the cleanstart must *not* be publicly connected to the previous account, and B) the cleanstarter has increased responsibility to behave well and avoid conflict. It would have helped me to have this more evolved level of policy when I cleanstarted last year. I think the nutshell needs to redone from scratch based on the current understanding of cleanstart. As well, we should should probably get consensus on some definitional qualities as follow:

• It already said it, but is everyone thoroughly on board that a cleanstart must never be publicly connected to the previous account, and that it is the cleanstarter's duty to try to stop that from happening? I've seen some editors like YouReallyCan who state "I used to be X" on their userpages, but that's not cleanstart. Under current policy, publicly connecting the pre-cleanstart and post-cleanstart, whoever does it, is a "broken" cleanstart. Right?

• Should the cleanstarter ever be required to state "This account is a cleanstart" (of course, not the previous name) on his or her or intergender's userpage? It would help admins to appraise the new account that pops up with an incongruous seeming level of experience and familiarity with Wikipedia jargon and processes and so forth. However I am really concerned that such notification rouses the curiosity of many admins, and for some it means "the hunt is on" for the previous account. There was the one Drmies who stated "I have a special little bag of resentment for namechangers who aren't open about their previous account." Wow. Carve out an emotional exemption for the harassees would ya, big fella? The current policy is split between reformers and harassment fleeers. Right now, no-one does, but should the reformer alone bear the requirement to openly acknowledge the cleanstart (of course not the previous name) at his or her or intergender's user page?

• I think it was SilkTork above sought input on whether ArbCom should be able, by decree, or addendum to some other decision I guess, to deny an particular editor a cleanstart? I say never without reasoning or specific explanation. "ArbCom has carefully considered it and X is denied a cleanstart" is not reasoning or specific explanation. "We have provided explanation privately to X for denying X a cleanstart" and doing so might be okay if circumstances called for that. Editors, even the routinely accused and generally disliked, deserve more than magical and unexplained decrees from the star chamber. Your thoughts? You probably ought to opine on it before they just start doing it.

Hope this helps. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.14.182 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)