Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Lodewijk]

I don't see that reasoning at all, actually. If roles are clearly separate,
having separate accounts is justifiable in my opinion.

When doing so in a way that could suggest larger support for a proposal
than is actually the case, it could make sense to make the connection
explicit in a disclosure (unless the connection is obvious). After all,
that is the main reason why communities have a problem with sockpuppetry.
In general it would be good to stay away with your personal account from
staff discussions and vice versa - although roles can change, and the
interest in a topic can remain after a job is finished. Buut in such cases,
disclosure may be needed.

I'm not sure why Fae is asking this question through this venue though -
but that is a discussion I recall from a week or so ago, so he's probably
aware of that.

Lodewijk



2017-02-27 19:30 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>:

> Well, I don't think the WMF staffer is acting in bad faith but I do think
> they need to stick to a single account to avoid confusion. That being said,
> I don't think a discussion like this is necessary here.
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Mon,
> 27 Feb 2017 10:22:54
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee
> personal
>  accounts in the same community discussions
>
> A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
> at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
> the discussion.
>
> Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
> constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
> hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> > do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> > on the same page.
> >
> > Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> > confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> > multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> > made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> > of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> > employee in the same discussion.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> > You
> > > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it
> continues.
> > > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > > curtious.
> > >
> > > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> > >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> > >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> > >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> > >> publishing personal views?
> > >>
> > >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> > >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> > >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> > >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> > >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> > >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> > >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> > >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> > >>
> > >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> > >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> > >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> > >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Fæ]

Please try to avoid turning legitimate questions for the WMF into
parodies. The WMF is not evil, nor have emails in this thread made
anything like that type of ridiculous allegation.

This topic is in-scope for Wikimedia-l as defined by "Organizational
issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations, others" and
is not an issue that is easily resolved on a local on-wiki
noticeboard, but an issue of WMF account usage which potentially
affects all Wikimedia projects.

Thanks,
Fae

On 27 February 2017 at 18:22, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
> at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
> the discussion.
>
> Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
> constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
> hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>
>> They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
>> do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
>> on the same page.
>>
>> Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
>> confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
>> multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
>> made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
>> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
>> employee in the same discussion.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
>> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
>> You
>> > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
>> > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
>> > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
>> > curtious.
>> >
>> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
>> >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
>> >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
>> >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
>> >> publishing personal views?
>> >>
>> >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
>> >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
>> >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
>> >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
>> >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
>> >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
>> >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
>> >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>> >>
>> >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
>> >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
>> >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
>> >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
>> >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
>> >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>> >>
>> >> Links
>> >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
>> >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
>> and_staff_accounts_in_the_
>> >> same_consensus_building_discussion
>> >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
>> >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
>> Legitimate_uses
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Fae
>> >> --
>> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> 
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Adrian Raddatz]

A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
the discussion.

Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.

On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> on the same page.
>
> Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> employee in the same discussion.
>
> Fae
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> You
> > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
> > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > curtious.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> >> publishing personal views?
> >>
> >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> >>
> >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
> >>
> >> Links
> >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
> and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> >> same_consensus_building_discussion
> >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
> Legitimate_uses
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Fæ]

They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
on the same page.

Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
employee in the same discussion.

Fae

On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
> could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
> I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> curtious.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>
>> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
>> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
>> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
>> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
>> publishing personal views?
>>
>> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
>> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
>> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
>> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
>> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
>> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
>> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
>> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>>
>> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
>> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
>> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
>> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
>> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
>> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>>
>> Links
>> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
>> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_
>> same_consensus_building_discussion
>> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
>> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Adrian Raddatz]

Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
curtious.

On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> publishing personal views?
>
> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>
> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>
> Links
> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> same_consensus_building_discussion
> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Fæ]

Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
publishing personal views?

I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.

I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.

Links
1. 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_same_consensus_building_discussion
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,