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 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,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to