User:Ecstatic Electrical/Socks, vandals, and AGF
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Always assume good faith and never bite newcomers. Even if a user is vandalizing, perhaps there is a reason why. Even if someone is a sock puppet, what if that sock is making constructive contributions? |
I may be a new user, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know what is going on with Wikipedia. Sure, I’ve just registered this account recently, but I’ve been around on Wikipedia for several years now under dozens upon dozens of IP addressses. One thing that I’ve discovered is that the primary principle of the assumption of good faith is sometimes cut short. In other words, sometimes (IMHO) users do not receive the amount of good faith that they deserve.
Vandalism
[edit]From my experience, users are usually quick to revert vandalism and warn the vandals fairly harshly after one polite message, usually through the use of template messages. Enough of that. You never know if the vandals might have a motive to be vandalizing. Sure, that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean that vandalism should be ignored, but you should never assume that someone is vandalizing just because they want to deliberately create a mess. What if someone simply doesn’t know better? This doesn’t only apply for younger editors — there are some people who may think incorrectly that a free-to-edit website means that they can post whatever content they want on that website (as long as such content isn’t illegal). Maybe vandals have a bad sense of humor are just trying to be funny. Or maybe they are unintentionally vandalizing. This last point is especially true with page blankings and the like. Many users won’t understand at first that most everyone can edit and create pages, but that only administrators can delete them. Therefore, users may blank a page, expecting to delete it. Never revert such actions as outright vandalism. Instead, revert the page blanking and politely inform the user how to request deletion.
Sock puppets
[edit]Don’t be quick to assume that someone is a sock puppet. Additionally, don’t automatically assume that a sock puppet has bad intentions and is going to cause more vandalism or disruption. Sure, this is the case for some, if not many sock puppets. A master vandalism-only account is blocked, and then the user sets up more accounts to create more of a mess. This should be dealt with appropriately as needed. However, sometimes, users will be blocked for vandalism, disruption, etc. and then they will come back under a new name and start making productive/constructive contributions. Such users should never be blocked on-sight, even if it is obvious that the user is a sock. Assume good faith. Leave a polite message on their talk page saying something to the effect of the following:
Hello <insert username here>,
I noticed that you may be an alternate account of another user (link to the other user’s page). Please note that using multiple accounts is strongly discouraged. If you have an original account, it is recommended that you sign in to that one and continue editing with it. If that original account is currently blocked from editing, you can appeal the block. However, using another account to edit while one account is blocked is not allowed. Thank you.
Notice how more lightweight in tone that message is, compared to “CheckUser evidence confirms that you are a sock puppet of XYZ — get the hell out of here”. Also, never block someone as a sock puppet just because they have the same IP address as another blocked user. There are millions of shared IP’s in the world, where hundreds if not thousands of users will share one IP range. I work in IT, so I know a thing or two about IP’s and DNS etc. Additionally, don’t take this essay too seriously. It’s not designed to be used as an official policy, but yet too often it is. There could be multiple circumstances where someone in one household/apartment complex/hotel is blocked from editing. Then, someone else from that same household/apartment complex/hotel may start to edit Wikipedia with similar interests as the blocked editor. Does this mean that the other person is a sock puppet of the blocked editor? No! Sadly, many accounts are blocked as socks solely based on factors like this.
Summary
[edit]In conclusion, basically always assume good faith with all users, even vandals or sock puppets. Remember that users who are vandalizing today may be contributing tomorrow with the right instructions and guidance. Also remember that not all users are using sock puppets in bad faith.