Please log in! Logging in will provide you with an ad-free website. It will also give you access to the Monobook skin, which is much easier to use and navigate.
First, it's actually not possible to delete users, and wikis that hack their code to be able to do so end up damaging themselves. I assume the intention was simply block, but it's fairly minor and I don't mean to nitpick.
Second, I was thinking we could allow sock puppetry as long as it's not abused. For example, it's not used for block evasion or to vote on issues multiple times.
I believe sock puppets can be useful to conceal edits from one's contribution history for people whose usernames are known to people they know or among others on the internet. It's possible that someone might want to edit a particular article, but not want their family, who holds a particular POV, to know about it, even if the edits are technically legitimate and useful.
03:15, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
It might become difficult to trace the real editor if (s)he is using a sockpuppet account. I know this is a reason you want to amend it, but what if something like JAF occurs and we keep blocking accounts but the remaining account keeps making accounts that stay "neutra;" until they begin vandalizing. At that stage, it is difficult to control. Fargo84TalkContributionsWorld War II03:35,3/28/2012 03:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
That is significant. If there was a problem, we could ask the Wikia staff to use Check User to determine whether the accounts are sock puppets. Although if someone who wants privacy for making edits to articles about debated issues is able to successfully stay private, whether they are allowed to or not is pretty much a moot point. How would we know they would be using multiple accounts?
There's a general info wiki called Citzendium that tries to make up the short comings of Wikipedia with controlled registration and a basic process of peer review. I know they require use of real names with occasional use of pen names for specific reasons. Personally I think that what would be ideal for a wiki would be to separate draft articles from published articles, and allow general editing for drafts, but only approved editors to edit the full articles. It would naturally be a much slower process, but a lot more reliable. I'm not in any way advocating for that here; please don't think I am. 04:39, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
