Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[dogbiscuit]

  
  
Thought I might give you some thoughts on this wet day.

It depends what you mean by a role account.

An account name, even if an apparently real name, is just a
pseudonym in Wikipedia terms - we are not allowed to consider the
real person behind the account (I won't go there!)  they are that
person role-playing on Wikipedia.

If an individual is taking the role of "Private person editing
Wikipedia" but also they have another role of "Person editing
Wikipedia in their role at work" then there should not be an issue
with one person operating two accounts - though I believe that link
is meant to be revealed. That is no different from a Wikipedian
deciding that they have two role accounts for different reasons
(Bishzilla comes to mind).

Within a company it is standard operating practice for certain tasks
to be invested in the job title, not the person, and therefore in a
company environment it is highly appropriate that there are role
accounts - it is stating that the responsibility for the edits lies
with the company. In terms of password security, it is no different
from the accountant at the firm holding the password for VAT
submission and on moving on roles passing the password to another
employee - in company terms it is the company who owns the password
and they are not disclosing it to a third party.

In this case, it increases the accountability, because if there is a
problem with the user editing, there is no issue going to the
employers and getting problems sorted out - a private account (where
you aren't even supposed to know who they are in real life) is a
problem and gives the organisation deniability.

The only issue that Wikipedia might have is a shared account - but
in this context, it wouldn't really be a problem if multiple people
were editing in the name of the organisation - it is something that
is done in the real world all the time.

With regard to the first comment in the thread - there should be no
reason why it should be a problem disagreeing with policy, policy is
there to be examined and tested as for it being fit for purpose.
Wikipedia's biggest problem as I see it is that policy is used for
the justification of doing the wrong thing, of which this is a
simple example. To me this is using policy to stop doing something
sensible - SOP for Wikipedia.

Dogbiscuit




Thomas Dalton wrote on 29/04/2012 02:40:

  On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

  
Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.

  
  Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
role account, they can just say it wasn't them.

If you would like another reason then, from 25 May onwards, role
accounts will violate the Terms of Use, section 5, "Password
Security":

"You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should
never disclose it to any third party."

(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en#5._Password_Security)

You can't operate a role account without someone disclosing the
password to a third party. (Well, I guess you could share the password
to an email account and use the "forgot your password" link every time
you wanted to log in, but you would still be violating the spirit of
the rules.)

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



  


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's a very different subject. The choice is not between pushing things
> underground and allowing promotional usernames. People can declare a COI
> without revealing who they are or putting things in their username.
> Declaring COIs  is a good use for userpages. Not least because userpages
> can be updated as editors shift employment and their COIs change.
>


In my experience, accounts like that only tend to edit articles about
themselves. If I am looking at the article [[Joe's Pizzas]] and I see an
editor named User:Joe's Pizzas in the edit history, I know what's what. If
it says J. Smith, the link is less obvious.

I agree things are different if User:Millie C. from Acme PR makes 2,000
edits a month and runs for admin. If we allowed accounts named after
organisations, their edits should be restricted to the organisation's
business. If they wanted to do other edits, they should register a second
account and disclose the link.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[WereSpielChequers]

>I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
especially in a case like >Monmouth Museum.

Well the community is pretty sure about that, if you want to change that I
suggest you start with an RFC. Personally I'm not annoyed by not for
profits using promotional names and happy not to start off with a block for
them. But considering how many times an active username can get plastered
over the internet it seems obvious to me that our policy is sound in
considering them promotional.

>As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name
making the same arguments, >whether they are justified or not. I'd rather
know who they are, but YMMV.

Knowing who someone works for is not the same as knowing who they are.

>It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have
ceased to exist, and that >appearances should be more important than
realities.

That's a very different subject. The choice is not between pushing things
underground and allowing promotional usernames. People can declare a COI
without revealing who they are or putting things in their username.
Declaring COIs  is a good use for userpages. Not least because userpages
can be updated as editors shift employment and their COIs change.

WSC

On 29 April 2012 18:43, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or
>> a negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
>> and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
>> some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
>> it is also promotional.
>>
>
>
> I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
> especially in a case like Monmouth Museum.
>
>
>
>> If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
>> usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
>> promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
>> clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage
>> than their charity work.
>>
>
>
> As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name
> making the same arguments, whether they are justified or not. I'd rather
> know who they are, but YMMV.
>
> It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have
> ceased to exist, and that appearances should be more important than
> realities.
>
> Andreas
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a
> negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
> and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
> some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
> it is also promotional.
>


I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
especially in a case like Monmouth Museum.



> If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
> usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
> promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
> clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage
> than their charity work.
>


As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name
making the same arguments, whether they are justified or not. I'd rather
know who they are, but YMMV.

It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have
ceased to exist, and that appearances should be more important than
realities.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[WereSpielChequers]

For me the difference that matters is that they are part of the movement,
WMF and WMUK in accounts denote staff editors. Communicating that is
something I see as internal communication. There are lots of ways in which
we allow internal communication to do things that we would not allow
external organisations to promote within the project.

As for whether being a charity makes a difference; Personally I'm more
likely to talk rather than block an editor who was from a not for profit.
But our policy doesn't discriminate between charities and other external
organisations.

WSC

On 29 April 2012 15:31, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 29 April 2012 15:23, WereSpielChequers 
> wrote:
> > If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
> > usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
> > promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
> > clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less
> coverage
> > than their charity work.
>
> How is that different to having "(WMF)" or "(WMUK)" after your
> username? There are several obvious differences (WMF/WMUK staff don't
> usually edit article content, they are affiliated with Wikipedia, they
> are non-profit, etc.), but I'm curious what, if any, difference you
> think makes one ok and the other not.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 April 2012 15:23, WereSpielChequers  wrote:
> If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
> usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
> promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
> clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage
> than their charity work.

How is that different to having "(WMF)" or "(WMUK)" after your
username? There are several obvious differences (WMF/WMUK staff don't
usually edit article content, they are affiliated with Wikipedia, they
are non-profit, etc.), but I'm curious what, if any, difference you
think makes one ok and the other not.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[WereSpielChequers]

I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a
negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
it is also promotional.

If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage
than their charity work.

WSC




On 29 April 2012 14:50, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Is a user name like "MonmouthMuseumWales" "promotional"?
>
> You could equally argue that it is transparent. And it is just this sort
> of transparency which we demand from the Bell Pottingers of this world (and
> crucify them for if we find them editing as "John Smith", without telling
> us who they work for).
>
> I think a company name account should be fine, as long as the person gives
> their real name on their user page, and states that they are the only ones
> editing from that account. That is more accountability and transparency
> than we have for any pseudonymous account.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We shouldn't confuse two overlapping issues here, role accounts and
>> promotional usernames. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia, but the objections
>> are different.
>>
>> As for the comparison between IP accounts and registered accounts, yes
>> there is an anomaly which would matter if the reason for not allowing role
>> accounts was concern over copyright. But the concerns over trust are
>> different and apply quite strongly. I'm pretty sure we don't whitelist IP
>> accounts for Huggle, we certainly don't give IP editors admin and other
>> additional userrights. The reason why we don't do that is that however good
>> the edits of the person or persons who have been editing from that IP the
>> future edits could come from someone altogether different.
>>
>> I rather doubt that either Newpage patrol or recent changes patrol could
>> function without an effective whitelisting system of people who we've
>> learned make trustworthy edits. So the ban on role accounts is needed for
>> the smooth running of the project.
>>
>> As for promotional usernames maybe even the softblock option is too
>> harsh, but there is a practical issue here, we are short of admins and
>> blocking is much quicker than having a quiet word. Perhaps what we need to
>> do is unbundle rename newbie to all admins, and give them the option of
>> renaming promotionally named accounts with fewer than 100 edits. I would
>> hope that a message such as "Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I think that Fred
>> from PimlicoMuseum might be a promotional username, so I've renamed your
>> account to "Fred P" if you are unhappy with your new name please file a
>> request here and we can change it again - though we don't want to change it
>> to anything that includes the name of an organisation."
>>
>> WSC
>>
>> On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>>  On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton >> > wrote:
>>>
 On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
 > Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior",
 say,
 > there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.

 Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
 it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
 You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
 role account, they can just say it wasn't them.

>>>
>>>
>>> With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
>>>
>>> 1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any
>>> one of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half
>>> of edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the
>>> other half?
>>>
>>> 2. Even where we have an account name like John Smith and know the
>>> account's IP address, it is not trivial to move from that knowledge to
>>> identifying the person – especially if the IP address is a proxy, a dynamic
>>> IP, or an Internet café in Calcutta. How does having an account name like
>>> John Smith help there?
>>>
>>> 3. It's happened before that several people have shared an account. I
>>> can recall a desysop over account sharing. We have no control over that,
>>> regardless of what the account name is.
>>>
>>> Compared to that, identifying the person editing Wikipedia at Monmouth
>>> Museum is a cinch. Especially if User:MonmouthMuseumWales says on her user
>>> page, "This account is operated by Roisin Curran, the Wikipedian in
>>> residence at Monmouth Museum."
>>>
>>> Surely, that would give us as much transparency as we could ever want?
>

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

blocking is much quicker than having a quiet word.
>

By the way, I do think you've hit the nail on the head here.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andreas Kolbe]

Is a user name like "MonmouthMuseumWales" "promotional"?

You could equally argue that it is transparent. And it is just this sort of
transparency which we demand from the Bell Pottingers of this world (and
crucify them for if we find them editing as "John Smith", without telling
us who they work for).

I think a company name account should be fine, as long as the person gives
their real name on their user page, and states that they are the only ones
editing from that account. That is more accountability and transparency
than we have for any pseudonymous account.

Andreas

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We shouldn't confuse two overlapping issues here, role accounts and
> promotional usernames. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia, but the objections
> are different.
>
> As for the comparison between IP accounts and registered accounts, yes
> there is an anomaly which would matter if the reason for not allowing role
> accounts was concern over copyright. But the concerns over trust are
> different and apply quite strongly. I'm pretty sure we don't whitelist IP
> accounts for Huggle, we certainly don't give IP editors admin and other
> additional userrights. The reason why we don't do that is that however good
> the edits of the person or persons who have been editing from that IP the
> future edits could come from someone altogether different.
>
> I rather doubt that either Newpage patrol or recent changes patrol could
> function without an effective whitelisting system of people who we've
> learned make trustworthy edits. So the ban on role accounts is needed for
> the smooth running of the project.
>
> As for promotional usernames maybe even the softblock option is too harsh,
> but there is a practical issue here, we are short of admins and blocking is
> much quicker than having a quiet word. Perhaps what we need to do is
> unbundle rename newbie to all admins, and give them the option of renaming
> promotionally named accounts with fewer than 100 edits. I would hope that a
> message such as "Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I think that Fred from
> PimlicoMuseum might be a promotional username, so I've renamed your account
> to "Fred P" if you are unhappy with your new name please file a request
> here and we can change it again - though we don't want to change it to
> anything that includes the name of an organisation."
>
> WSC
>
> On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>> > Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
>>> > there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.
>>>
>>> Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
>>> it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
>>> You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
>>> role account, they can just say it wasn't them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
>>
>> 1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any
>> one of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half
>> of edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the
>> other half?
>>
>> 2. Even where we have an account name like John Smith and know the
>> account's IP address, it is not trivial to move from that knowledge to
>> identifying the person – especially if the IP address is a proxy, a dynamic
>> IP, or an Internet café in Calcutta. How does having an account name like
>> John Smith help there?
>>
>> 3. It's happened before that several people have shared an account. I can
>> recall a desysop over account sharing. We have no control over that,
>> regardless of what the account name is.
>>
>> Compared to that, identifying the person editing Wikipedia at Monmouth
>> Museum is a cinch. Especially if User:MonmouthMuseumWales says on her user
>> page, "This account is operated by Roisin Curran, the Wikipedian in
>> residence at Monmouth Museum."
>>
>> Surely, that would give us as much transparency as we could ever want? In
>> fact, rather more transparency than we have for all our pseudonymous users?
>>
>> I am not saying we should allow role accounts. I am just not convinced by
>> the arguments brought forward here.
>>
>> And I do think that the present admin practice of blocking role accounts
>> on sight is unfriendly and should stop. I was instrumental in getting Xeno
>> to change [[WP:UAAI]] in February 2011 to say that accounts using
>> organisation names should *not* be blocked on sight if they edit
>> productively, but that admins should *talk* to people first.
>>
>> So it's very disappointing to see that this still goes on, especially if
>> the person at the receiving end is someone on a project like Monmouthpedia.
>> Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> _

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[WereSpielChequers]

We shouldn't confuse two overlapping issues here, role accounts and
promotional usernames. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia, but the objections
are different.

As for the comparison between IP accounts and registered accounts, yes
there is an anomaly which would matter if the reason for not allowing role
accounts was concern over copyright. But the concerns over trust are
different and apply quite strongly. I'm pretty sure we don't whitelist IP
accounts for Huggle, we certainly don't give IP editors admin and other
additional userrights. The reason why we don't do that is that however good
the edits of the person or persons who have been editing from that IP the
future edits could come from someone altogether different.

I rather doubt that either Newpage patrol or recent changes patrol could
function without an effective whitelisting system of people who we've
learned make trustworthy edits. So the ban on role accounts is needed for
the smooth running of the project.

As for promotional usernames maybe even the softblock option is too harsh,
but there is a practical issue here, we are short of admins and blocking is
much quicker than having a quiet word. Perhaps what we need to do is
unbundle rename newbie to all admins, and give them the option of renaming
promotionally named accounts with fewer than 100 edits. I would hope that a
message such as "Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I think that Fred from
PimlicoMuseum might be a promotional username, so I've renamed your account
to "Fred P" if you are unhappy with your new name please file a request
here and we can change it again - though we don't want to change it to
anything that includes the name of an organisation."

WSC

On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>> > Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
>> > there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.
>>
>> Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
>> it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
>> You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
>> role account, they can just say it wasn't them.
>>
>
>
> With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
>
> 1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any
> one of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half
> of edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the
> other half?
>
> 2. Even where we have an account name like John Smith and know the
> account's IP address, it is not trivial to move from that knowledge to
> identifying the person – especially if the IP address is a proxy, a dynamic
> IP, or an Internet café in Calcutta. How does having an account name like
> John Smith help there?
>
> 3. It's happened before that several people have shared an account. I can
> recall a desysop over account sharing. We have no control over that,
> regardless of what the account name is.
>
> Compared to that, identifying the person editing Wikipedia at Monmouth
> Museum is a cinch. Especially if User:MonmouthMuseumWales says on her user
> page, "This account is operated by Roisin Curran, the Wikipedian in
> residence at Monmouth Museum."
>
> Surely, that would give us as much transparency as we could ever want? In
> fact, rather more transparency than we have for all our pseudonymous users?
>
> I am not saying we should allow role accounts. I am just not convinced by
> the arguments brought forward here.
>
> And I do think that the present admin practice of blocking role accounts
> on sight is unfriendly and should stop. I was instrumental in getting Xeno
> to change [[WP:UAAI]] in February 2011 to say that accounts using
> organisation names should *not* be blocked on sight if they edit
> productively, but that admins should *talk* to people first.
>
> So it's very disappointing to see that this still goes on, especially if
> the person at the receiving end is someone on a project like Monmouthpedia.
> Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot.
>
> Andreas
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
>
> 1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any one
> of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half of
> edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the
> other half?

We significantly restrict what anonymous users can do. Registered
users can do more (especially once they've been around for a few days)
because we know at least a little about who they are - we know they
are the person that made the other edits on that account. With a role
account, we don't know that. You could have one person editing
semi-protected articles, for example, based on the good editing
history of someone else.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> > Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
> > there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.
>
> Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
> it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
> You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
> role account, they can just say it wasn't them.
>


With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:

1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any
one of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half
of edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the
other half?

2. Even where we have an account name like John Smith and know the
account's IP address, it is not trivial to move from that knowledge to
identifying the person – especially if the IP address is a proxy, a dynamic
IP, or an Internet café in Calcutta. How does having an account name like
John Smith help there?

3. It's happened before that several people have shared an account. I can
recall a desysop over account sharing. We have no control over that,
regardless of what the account name is.

Compared to that, identifying the person editing Wikipedia at Monmouth
Museum is a cinch. Especially if User:MonmouthMuseumWales says on her user
page, "This account is operated by Roisin Curran, the Wikipedian in
residence at Monmouth Museum."

Surely, that would give us as much transparency as we could ever want? In
fact, rather more transparency than we have for all our pseudonymous users?

I am not saying we should allow role accounts. I am just not convinced by
the arguments brought forward here.

And I do think that the present admin practice of blocking role accounts on
sight is unfriendly and should stop. I was instrumental in getting Xeno to
change [[WP:UAAI]] in February 2011 to say that accounts using organisation
names should *not* be blocked on sight if they edit productively, but that
admins should *talk* to people first.

So it's very disappointing to see that this still goes on, especially if
the person at the receiving end is someone on a project like Monmouthpedia.
Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andrew Gray]

On 29 April 2012 13:08, Harry Burt  wrote:

> In any case, role accounts are in all practical terms regarded merely
> an accountability issue these days. Which is probably why no page goes
> into detail on the copyright matter.

It also seems quite at odds with the fact that we *do* allow and
assist organisations to release content under a free license - just so
long as they go through another process. There are practical
identification and verification benefits to doing it this way, but it
certainly doesn't support any kind of copyright limitation.

(I am becoming of the opinion that prohibiting role accounts is a bad
idea full stop, but that's another story...)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Deryck Chan]

On 29 April 2012 13:14, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 13:08, Harry Burt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
> > mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com)>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
> > > does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem
> > > to spell that out. Perhaps it should.
> > >
> > > Charles
> >
> > As I understand it, there used to be a general concern that the only
> > way the GFDL could be held to be compatible with pseudonymity was if
> > there was a 1-to-1 mapping between pseudonyms and human beings.
> >
> > I'm not sure that was ever actually looked into, since it seems to me
> > that many-to-many would be just as good, as long as you realised and
> > confirmed you were asking to be attributed with a vague identifier
> > (like 99% of humanity does when it picks a name someone else already
> > has or had).
>
>
>
>
> Given trademark law, I'd say a corporate name like "Disney Inc." is
> significantly more rigid than a personal name like "John Smith". People
> don't tend to sue you if you call yourself John Smith quite so much as they
> do over using the names of multinational conglomerates...
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> 
>
>
Except that the line between a trademark and a personal name is incredibly
fine: think about the likes of John Lewis, Cath Kidston and W.H. Smith.

Deryck


>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Tom Morris]

On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 13:08, Harry Burt wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
> mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com)> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
> > does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem
> > to spell that out. Perhaps it should.
> > 
> > Charles
> 
> As I understand it, there used to be a general concern that the only
> way the GFDL could be held to be compatible with pseudonymity was if
> there was a 1-to-1 mapping between pseudonyms and human beings.
> 
> I'm not sure that was ever actually looked into, since it seems to me
> that many-to-many would be just as good, as long as you realised and
> confirmed you were asking to be attributed with a vague identifier
> (like 99% of humanity does when it picks a name someone else already
> has or had).




Given trademark law, I'd say a corporate name like "Disney Inc." is 
significantly more rigid than a personal name like "John Smith". People don't 
tend to sue you if you call yourself John Smith quite so much as they do over 
using the names of multinational conglomerates...

-- 
Tom Morris




___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Harry Burt]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
 wrote:
>
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
> does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem
> to spell that out. Perhaps it should.
>
> Charles

As I understand it, there used to be a general concern that the only
way the GFDL could be held to be compatible with pseudonymity was if
there was a 1-to-1 mapping between pseudonyms and human beings.

I'm not sure that was ever actually looked into, since it seems to me
that many-to-many would be just as good, as long as you realised and
confirmed you were asking to be attributed with a vague identifier
(like 99% of humanity does when it picks a name someone else already
has or had).

In any case, role accounts are in all practical terms regarded merely
an accountability issue these days. Which is probably why no page goes
into detail on the copyright matter.

Harry

--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Charles Matthews]

On 29 April 2012 02:17, Richard Symonds  wrote:



> I was of the understanding that it was something to do with copyright/legal
> issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and I'm struggling to
> remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I had a trawl through
> all the appropriate pages on meta and enwp, and although I could find out
> that role accounts were blocked, I couldn't see the justification behind it
> mentioned anywhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem
to spell that out. Perhaps it should.

Charles

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[John Vandenberg]

I dont know whether this is what Richard and his friend were
discussing, but the MonmouthMuseumWales RFC has closed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=489718366#MonmouthMuseumWales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rewarding_Incomptence.3F

I have often faced this issue during training & workshops.

The most recent example can be seen here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CityLibraries_Townsville&action=history

(it started in userspace)

Thankfully nobody blocked the accounts during the training.  Over
lunch I explained the reasoning behind our username policy and they
instantly understood why it was a bad idea to use institutional names.
 They created new accounts after lunch. ;-)

However no everyone has experts to talk to at lunch.  Instant blocks
for such a trivial problem are stupid.  We should give orgname
accounts a few days to select a new username and jump through the
hoops.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Richard Symonds  wrote:
> All,
>
> Me and a close friend were having a rather heated debate tonight on the
> topic of role accounts, and I am hoping you (as a community) can answer my
> question:
>
> Why do we ban role accounts?
>
> I was of the understanding that it was something to do with copyright/legal
> issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and I'm struggling to
> remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I had a trawl through
> all the appropriate pages on meta and enwp, and although I could find out
> that role accounts were blocked, I couldn't see the justification behind it
> mentioned anywhere
>
> I'm not disagreeing with the policy, but I was wondering if anyone knew the
> reasoning behind it - and why said reasoning isn't included in the policy
> pages?
>
> All the best,
>
> Chase
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Fae]

I can't imagine a good rationale for a role account. Many of us have
legitimate socks as open wifi accounts or demonstration accounts (such
as my vanilla user:Faelig to show what a "normal" account logged in
looks like) and accounts like user:Jon Davies (WMUK) seem suitable and
sensible without needing the possibility of shared accounts.

For marginal examples, one need only look closely as the campus
ambassador programme where there are many University students with
names like user:Nnu-12-22100538 which are created (apparently) as part
of standard class-room names. In essence this is a "role account",
just not shared.

I hope it is obvious that an account that apparently represents an
organization rather than an individual will always be problematic.
However unless there is spamming or similar extreme issues, I would
always politely advise a rename and be open to hearing the user's
rationale rather than playing whack-a-sock with the block hammer.
Compliance to the naming standard is not always obvious, especially if
we think that user:Nnu is probably not appropriate as they may be seen
as representing Nanjing Normal University, but would allow user:Nnu1.

Cheers,
Fae

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[WereSpielChequers]

I'm with Thomas Dalton on this. If we allow role accounts then sooner or
later we will get edit wars by two different people logged into the same
account, disputes about U1 an G7 deletions where one person used an account
to create something and another user of the same account then gets upset.
But most pertinently, when it comes to additional userrights and even
huggle whitelisting we are trusting the person who operates that account.
If they then give their password to someone else then we have an unknown
person with userrights that they have not earned.

WSC

On 29 April 2012 02:40, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> > Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
> > there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.
>
> Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
> it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
> You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
> role account, they can just say it wasn't them.
>
> If you would like another reason then, from 25 May onwards, role
> accounts will violate the Terms of Use, section 5, "Password
> Security":
>
> "You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should
> never disclose it to any third party."
>
> (
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en#5._Password_Security
> )
>
> You can't operate a role account without someone disclosing the
> password to a third party. (Well, I guess you could share the password
> to an email account and use the "forgot your password" link every time
> you wanted to log in, but you would still be violating the spirit of
> the rules.)
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
> there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.

Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
role account, they can just say it wasn't them.

If you would like another reason then, from 25 May onwards, role
accounts will violate the Terms of Use, section 5, "Password
Security":

"You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should
never disclose it to any third party."

(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en#5._Password_Security)

You can't operate a role account without someone disclosing the
password to a third party. (Well, I guess you could share the password
to an email account and use the "forgot your password" link every time
you wanted to log in, but you would still be violating the spirit of
the rules.)

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Andreas Kolbe]

Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.

Andreas

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> I thought it was just a matter of accountability. With a role account,
> there is no way of knowing who actually made an edit.
> On Apr 29, 2012 2:18 AM, "Richard Symonds"  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Me and a close friend were having a rather heated debate tonight on the
>> topic of role accounts, and I am hoping you (as a community) can answer my
>> question:
>>
>> Why do we ban role accounts?
>>
>> I was of the understanding that it was something to do with
>> copyright/legal issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and
>> I'm struggling to remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I
>> had a trawl through all the appropriate pages on meta and enwp, and
>> although I could find out that role accounts *were* blocked, I couldn't
>> see the justification behind it mentioned anywhere
>>
>> I'm not disagreeing with the policy, but I was wondering if anyone knew
>> the reasoning behind it - and why said reasoning isn't included in the
>> policy pages?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Chase
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Thomas Dalton]

I thought it was just a matter of accountability. With a role account,
there is no way of knowing who actually made an edit.
On Apr 29, 2012 2:18 AM, "Richard Symonds"  wrote:

> All,
>
> Me and a close friend were having a rather heated debate tonight on the
> topic of role accounts, and I am hoping you (as a community) can answer my
> question:
>
> Why do we ban role accounts?
>
> I was of the understanding that it was something to do with
> copyright/legal issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and
> I'm struggling to remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I
> had a trawl through all the appropriate pages on meta and enwp, and
> although I could find out that role accounts *were* blocked, I couldn't
> see the justification behind it mentioned anywhere
>
> I'm not disagreeing with the policy, but I was wondering if anyone knew
> the reasoning behind it - and why said reasoning isn't included in the
> policy pages?
>
> All the best,
>
> Chase
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts

[Richard Symonds]

All,

Me and a close friend were having a rather heated debate tonight on the
topic of role accounts, and I am hoping you (as a community) can answer my
question:

Why do we ban role accounts?

I was of the understanding that it was something to do with copyright/legal
issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and I'm struggling to
remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I had a trawl
through all the appropriate pages on meta and enwp, and although I could
find out that role accounts *were* blocked, I couldn't see the
justification behind it mentioned anywhere

I'm not disagreeing with the policy, but I was wondering if anyone knew the
reasoning behind it - and why said reasoning isn't included in the policy
pages?

All the best,

Chase
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org