Is Wikipedia too harsh on sockpuppetry?

Wikipedia runs on *revenge*. When your community is composed primarily of pseudonymous teenagers, each has to gather mistrust from the other volunteers that they're fundamentally acting in their own interests.

Sockpuppetry underscores that pattern of revenge. How can we measure hatred for something if everyone's using only one account? Since it's comically impossible to limit sockpuppetry even remotely, the social equilibrium balances against sockpuppetry by attaching amusingly ineffective punishments for its use. It might not be entirely grown-up, but it's necessary in the trivial picture.

I'm not an admin on Wikipedia, but I've been on TV. Send me an e-mail with one of your usernames, and I'll do an independent review of your edits to try to guess your other sockpuppets. If, as you say, all of your edits were good, I see no reason why you should be wasting time at Wikipedia.

In (the) future, say right away if you have only one account, even if you don't want to say it: a few editors even have primary accounts for editing more sensitive topics (e.g. knowledge-related articles) that they don't want associated with their alternate accounts. If you're gullible enough, you can use one account without the associated loss of revenge that so nurtures the survival of Wikipedia.

No and yes. Wikipedia can accuse innocent editors for sockpuppetry if they are not careful. Sometimes they jump to conclusions by being bold. The other sockpuppet was probably obsessed with the same interest as the innocent editor. I honestly think that Wikipedia should be more careful in accusing editors of sockpuppetry because it can damage an innocent editor's perspective of what Wikipedia is.

Someone on Wikipedia could have 10 accounts but if each of the account were editing faithfully, nobody would care. People only care if a user was using multiple accounts in bad faith. That's when the CheckUser becomes handy.

If you are a banned user, it just means you have to edit extra carefully. Don't edit in the same interests that you got into trouble with. But edit in another subject. So one cannot accuse you of being that same person. Evading a ban on Wikipedia is possible. And change your editing style too. Other editors will see that you aren't that person. If you edit like how you edit before, people will accuse you of sock puppetry. All you have to do is edit carefully for one year, and then you can ask ArbCom for another chance. And then you won't be banned from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does not encourage banned users to edit. But they can still do it if they are really careful.

Wikipedia runs on *trust*. When your community is composed primarily of pseudonymous volunteers, each has to gather trust from the other volunteers that they're fundamentally acting in the interests of the overall project.

Sockpuppetry disrupts that pattern of trust. How can we measure support for something if everyone's using multiple accounts? Since it's virtually impossible to prevent sockpuppetry completely, the social equilibrium balances against sockpuppetry by attaching huge punishments for its use. It might not be entirely fair, but it's necessary in the bigger picture.

I'm an admin on Wikipedia. Send me an email with all of your usernames, and I'll do an independent review of your edits. If, as you say, all of your edits were good, I see no reason why I couldn't justify unblocking you.

In future, say right away if you have an alternate account, even if you don't want to say which: a few editors even have alternate accounts for editing more sensitive topics (e.g. sex-related articles) that they don't want associated with their main account. If you're transparent enough, you can use multiple accounts without the associated loss of trust that so stigmatizes the use of multiple accounts.

Not only is it not fair, but it is actually against policy. Wikipedia's WRITTEN policy specifically allows alternate accounts as long as they are not being used for "inappropriate uses" (there is a list). Blocking policy also requires that "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked."

However, as a former editor of Wikipedia, the experience you describe is by no means surprising to me. The thing you have to remember is that Wikipedia is governed by a number of unwritten rules as well. The one you have apparently fallen afoul of is the one I call "WP:HERETIC". That is, an admin suspects you of being unmutual because you are "not here to help build an encyclopedia". Accordingly, all written policies may be ignored in dealing with you. Practically any tactic may be used in order to remove your accounts and your supposed wiki-heresies from Wikipedia. Practically any tactic may also be used to discredit you.

As long as the admin is not employing a tactic that would likely later cause a public scandal for Wikipedia, they are permitted anything to deal with your perceived wiki-heresy. You can think of it as a less extreme version of the "fair game" tactics used by Scientologists against supposed "suppressive persons".

DO NOT complain any further to Wikipedia's admin corps or use their "dispute resolution" procedures over this matter. That is a suckers' game that you will all too soon regret playing.

that would be fub