Vote to unblock Wonderfool and readmit them as a member of this community. Specifically:
It is the consensus of this community to unblock Wonderfool and readmit them as a member of the community. Their original account will be unblocked and the page unprotected. Wonderfool may treat it as their user page.
We will petition the stewards on Meta to respect our decision by removing the global lock on Wonderfool's account.
Wonderfool will be allowed to use multiple accounts just like any other user, provided these accounts are not used for abusive purposes.
"This list does not include accounts that have been globally locked on charges of cross wiki disruption, spamming, or vandalism. Such users are not globally banned, per se. If they create new accounts and are not disruptive with those accounts, they will not be locked again merely because it is discovered that they were previously globally locked."
Support It’s been a long time since WF did anything drastically destructive like deleting the main page and it’s a headache trying to work out who he’s posting as when his accounts keep getting blocked. WF also does some good work (such as recently adding long lists of derived terms to various entries). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the editor likes to make productive edits and that this kind of editing work should be welcomed unless there is a drastic negative impact. In the past year or so, WF has made corrections on a dozen to two dozen of my citations/quotations that corrected various errors I made, and only a few other editors have done the kind of correction WF has made even once (in this past year or so). WF also did some edits I did not necessarily agree with but were definitely innovative and interesting related to "See also" sections. If this vote is successful, I would like to think that its a step toward reversing the close-mindedness that characterises our present backward era. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was going to abstain, but not anymore. If we're not going to enforce an indefinite block against WF, then there's no good reason to have one, nor is there a good reason to slap another permaban on them ever again unless it's a situation where we really are willing to implement it. Not interested in this "we can't block WF" hogwash; yes we could (imagine if someone else block-evading like WF were posting child porn; you guys really think we couldn't stop them if they kept creating new accounts? Plz). Deep down, the community doesn't actually want WF indefinitely blocked because their positive contributions far outweigh their negative ones. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either block or unblock. Ergo: Unblock. Megathonic (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Nah, on second thought, I'm gonna stick with abstaining. Megathonic (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "imagine if someone else block-evading like WF were posting child porn; you guys really think we couldn't stop them if they kept creating new accounts?": I think that example actually highlights what makes it difficult to stop WF: most of WF's edits are valid (until he gets bored). If someone were posting links to porn sites, that'd be sufficiently different from valid lexicographic behaviour that we could just write an Abuse Filter to automatically prevent posting links to those sites, and that would only hit that user because no 'valid' editor would be adding such links. But to stop the kind of edits WF makes... what, do we write an Abuse Filter that stops new users from adding citations to words? block anyone who RfVs a word that doesn't have cites? - -sche(discuss)17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My hypothetical wouldn't just be someone posting links to websites. They could also upload images of child porn themselves, or add sexually perverted text about children as usage examples or definitions. That would make it much more difficult to stop, especially if they're also doing so in languages where there are less editors to catch it.
Personally, I don't care whether WF is indefinitely blocked or not, which is why I decided to keep my vote as abstain after all. What I don't care for, however, is this firestorm over an admin enforcing our policies because other admins don't want WF blocked on sight. All right, then our indefinite block of WF is misaligned with our treatment of them in practice, so bring it into alignment: remove the indefinite block. Megathonic (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've mentioned this child porn stuff repeatedly now and it's hard to see where you are going with it beyond a sort of osmosis of moral outrage. An indefinite block would presumably be applied more stringently in the case of someone posting child porn, yes. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly? Only in two comments, and the second comment only exists because I received a reply to the first and wanted to clarify that a person could also do it in the way that WF posts, whereby a filter alone wouldn't be able to stop it. "indefinite block would presumably be applied more stringently". Yes, that's my point. Since I first learned of WF last year, I've read continuously that we can't block them, and I'm arguing that's not the case. We could, if we really wanted to, but we don't want to. As a counterexample I gave an unambiguous situation where everyone would be united in stamping that person's presence on this wiki out, and I do think in such a situation we could be successful. Megathonic (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure hypotheticals help all that much, though. Of course we could block them by putting wide range-blocks in place, but the collateral damage of that is outweighed by their productive edits.
To draw my own analogy, it feels about as helpful to bring up as it does to suggest amputation as a cure for something like athlete's foot (which is often very difficult to get rid of). Just because it would work doesn't mean we should consider it a serious option. Theknightwho (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thadh below (and Equinox, and WF themselves) that this presumably won't change anything on WF's part; ultimately a time-out just seems useful to me: my vote's squarely directed at how it's being handled. Should be said I'm apparently also more comfortable than some with rules not being applied 100% consistently, according to common sense, but since it's obvious that some users do understandably take an issue with it regularising the situation a bit might be healthy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Their original account will be unblocked": I'm assuming that this is User:Wonderfool. If this user (who has 800+ aliases) wants to use any other account as a sole main account from now on, that's fine by me and may be a way of wiping the slate clean, but it seems tacitly assumed that the "main account" for these purposes is "Wonderfool", which is one of several that is globally locked and has been a sockpuppet account used by this person(s). While we're on the topic, I would also support that only one person use this account: it's not clear to me that all of these edits have been from the same person.
"Wonderfool will be allowed to use multiple accounts just like any other user", which to my mind is consistent with m:Sock puppetry, since we have no local definition of this page (e.g. w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). So legitimate uses of multiple accounts would be for privacy reasons (using one account on public terminals and another on private devices) or if Wonderfool is working on a technical or designated role (seems unlikely, but not impossible). There may be other uses, but I'm struggling to think of what they could be. In any case, those alternate accounts must be declared and never used for purposes like gaming a vote or providing fake support for controversial edits, getting in revert wars, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf Why are you continuing to block Wonderfool accounts after the end of the vote? These caveats that you've written here were not part of the vote, and hold no weight. Theknightwho (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because any other user does not use multiple accounts for standard editing. When does that happen? What users have 900+ accounts that they use to do standard editing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert in any of this, but I believe the intent was to indeed treat him like any other user. And while it is against the rules to have sock puppets, I would imagine that for the average user that rule would be unlikely to be enforced unless it was being abused, since otherwise it would be difficult to detect. I.e. if I had an alt acct that I used for some reason, would anybody even be able to tell?
I'm wondering now how all the WF socks were found out until now. I'm sure some of them were blatant, but were the other ones just hunted down even if they were non-abusive? With my (limited) understanding of checkuser, I wasn't sure that was possible... – Guitarmankev1(talk)21:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have local CheckUsers and they may have investigated Wonderfool, but it's typically from patterns of behavior and explicit admission. I have proposed a vote for a policy on multiple accounts, since we do not have a local one and the general guidance from Meta is that users are requested to have one account. It is definitely not normal to have 1,000. So rather than have this implicit disagreement or loophole or whatever, we should have explicit language about when it is acceptable to have multiple accounts. Please see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2023/August#Determining_language_for_a_vote_on_multiple_accounts, User:Guitarmankev1. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has been my experience that the blocking hardly slows Wonderfool down, as I am daily finding new edits from yet another sockpuppet. I would much prefer to know right away whose edits I am dealing with, and to have a single talk page I can use for messages. Kiwima (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cautious support, assuming the sock puppetry stops and that situation continues to be monitored. If the user starts making trouble, they can just be blocked again. And if they do spit in the face of the community after this gesture of good will, that's just going to be much more of a detriment than a badge of honor, as plenty of people will get to say "I told you so" and many more community members will be motivated to shut down the sockpuppets. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've found and fixed plenty of WF mistakes, and they've fixed some of mine, too. I think WF is editing in good faith and the project is better off with their continued participation. I'm in favor of ignoring past transgressions and treating future participation the same way we would treat any other editor. JeffDoozan (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm in favor of ignoring past transgressions and treating future participation the same way we would treat any other editor." Note: as mentioned on the talk page, we do not and should not treat other editors like this. We do not give full pardons, and thankfully, that specific section was removed from the vote. AG202 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recently WFs accounts have been aggressively banned not (AFAIK) for bad behavior but because one admin has decided to strictly enforce infinite blocking for "sockpuppets created for the purpose of vandalism or block evasion", which is a valid interpretation of WT:BLOCK. I hope that by unblocking User:Wonderfool, any use of sockpuppets cannot be considered "created for the purpose of ban evasion" and we can treat WF as we would treat any other productive editor, including temporary blocks for disruptive behavior per WT:BLOCK. JeffDoozan (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He does indeed provide a lot of productive and beneficial changes to this dictionary, and I myself have had some good experiences working with him. Regarding the sock puppetry, I don't see it as be a punishable offence as long as it isn't being abused (vote manipulation, dogpiling discussions, etc), but neither should it be encouraged since the official position is "no sock puppets". So hopefully point 3 above is interpreted as "harmless sock puppet accounts won't be banned solely because they belong to WF". Vote changed to Oppose, see below. – Guitarmankev1(talk)13:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I do not have high hopes that Wonderfool will abide by the proposal, because I expect him to value low-key anarchy and "Internet infamy" over regular editing. But at least it might persuade a sysop to stop unilaterally tilting at windmills, and it might prevent newish users from developing an unrealistic threat perception once they learn about Wonderfool. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also agree with Lingo Bingo Dingo and Al-Muqanna above; I don’t expect this to accomplish anything but a reprieve from the recent fruitless crusading, but I strongly disagree with the unilateral way the latter has been carried out and think it ought to stop. Rules exist to serve the dictionary, not the other way around – and when it comes down to it, WF does a good deal more good than harm for the project. (I would add that, as I understand it, the purpose of blocks is not to punish or make a point, but to prevent harm to the project, and the blocks against WF, whether you see them as a troll or a lovable scamp, simply do nothing towards accomplishing this.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given numerous people have now expressed they have a problem with this approach, it quite frankly seems absurd that the daily bans still continue. Theknightwho (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to stop the daily bans, and we know that WF isn't going to stop what they're doing, then there should be a more specific vote imho. Of all the votes that I've seen fail because of specifics & hypotheticals (including votes that involve small policy changes), I'm rather surprised (and a bit concerned) that this is the one that folks feel can be hand-waved. AG202 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was the essentially the status quo before this whole mess. I would say, if WF does bad in the mainspace, go a little harder on them. (And do a mass cleanup to undo all their bad stuff that still exists.) cf (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would prefer the status quo, which I like to explain as a type of work release: we refrain from enforcing his block as long as WF behaves and does useful work. It's not an endorsement of bad behavior, but a conditional suspension of punishment predicated on good behavior. If he acts up, we have all the authority we need to block him and revert his edits- no waiting while we decide whether we have consensus. This was arrived at after years of failure to stop or even slow down his editing, and after WF got tired of playing games. It's not perfect: it requires constant vigilance and a certain amount of cleanup, but there are enough of us willing to put in the effort to make it work. It also requires thinking outside the box, because WF lives outside the box. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I think that trying to keep WF from contributing is a waste of effort and probably doomed to failure. I would rather unblock him if that's what it takes to stop this mindless obsession with the letter of the blocking policy to the exclusion of common sense. It will probably have unforeseen consequences and may not work- but it's worth a try. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz if we're thinking outside the box, maybe this is an opportunity to realize that in this day and age, individuals with enough obsession and technical means can materially impact a project like Wiktionary, e.g. by creating an inordinate amount of work for admins to either enforce anti-sockpuppetry measures, or revert bad edits. Maybe there's need for more sophisticated automation that doesn't exist today - perhaps at the platform level - to handle persistent behavior of WF-like proportions. This is a conversation that, I assume, can be had with the WMF, and a putative feature could be funded in various ways (including GoFundMe) if deemed desirable and adequate. It's 2023 - we're kinda lucky that WF is our only editor with the kind of pattern of rule abuse he has. I don't know that we want to continue relying on luck indefinitely, though. Chernorizets (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll forgive me for inserting myself here, while serial vandals/sockpuppeteers like Wonderfool are certainly rare, he's not unique: there was a long-term person like this on Commons and another on Wikispecies for many, many years. The nature of these projects is also that there are probably a few others who are active now (as far as I know, the entire WMF-spehere is just made up of a bunch of Wonderfool sockpuppets and me). I think the solution to this kind of issue may be addressed by more aggressive CheckUser work and artificial intelligence to spot certain patterns. For a variety of reasons, local CheckUsers seems unable, uninterested, or unwilling to resort to that kind of approach. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it is worth trying something new after more than a decade of quasi-blocked status. If there is some obvious negative outcome to this vote it is trivially easy to re-block him and get right back to where we are now, hence no real downside. - TheDaveRoss14:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support WF's work overall has been constructive, especially if only the more recent ones are counted. That being said, I would prefer returning to the status quo, though unblocking WF doesn't do much more harm than that. Frankly speaking, it is Koavf's recent block-on-sight actions that has prompted me to vote support; I would have voted abstain were that did not happen. – Wpi (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's clear that the community does not support a ban on the person, which means there's no point to a block on the account. —Mahāgaja · talk20:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen his work and it seems that he's contributing well enough. Yes, he was a rogue admin that had multiple socks but he didn't commit any crimes and should be given a second chance. But I'd like to note that he should never be granted any advanced privileges again. Minorax (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bans have proven ineffective and only cause more drama than the person himself. I disagree with point 3 allowing multiple accounts because I want to see his edits in one place, but I will accept it if it's needed to pass the vote. His edits are constructive and not even reverted, so the bans have become an awful running joke. If the bans were to avoid rewarding him, the current situation is giving him more fame. Bans have not excluded him from the community, but have rather annoyingly made the community play detective and whack-a-mole. Again, video game players reflexively create a new account upon permanent bans without thinking, but temporary bans for a day might make them reflect. Administration should be used constructively to clean up problematic behaviours, not in vengeance to punish a specific individual. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per most supporters above, I’m supporting the vote to maintain the de facto status quo while ending the special case so that WF’s accounts won’t be banned simply because his main account was banned years ago. Mcph2 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderfool has shown a willingness to stick to a single account if not blocked, and the status quo is clearly not working. By unblocking him we give him a chance to behave more like a normal contributor. I see the status quo like Prohibition; it didn't work and in fact actively made things worse, and in comparison the "legalize and regulate" approach ultimately did. Benwing2 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2 Unfortunately, as seen in the Talk page, Wonderfool has explicitly stated that the outcome of this vote won't really change any of their behavior. I doubt that they're going to stick to their original account, which will honestly put us back to square one in however long it takes. That's part of why I'm honestly quite disappointed, yet not surprised, that this vote is proceeding in this manner. Nothing is going to change. If the goal was to stop the insta-banning, then a vote on it specifically and updating our policy should've been made. This gets us nowhere in the long term. Also, the votes just to "see where this goes" and that it'd be "funny" do not spark confidence for me in this project. AG202 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202 Not sure I agree this vote gets us nowhere. The status quo isn't working and people seem willing to tolerate Wonderfool on the theory that his actual editing behavior isn't block or ban-worthy outside of the block-evading. We know that Wonderfool did things 10 or 15 years ago that were worthy of perma-blocking, but we don't know whether this will still happen when he is unblocked. Several people seem to think it won't, and we will never know without giving him the opportunity to demonstrate that he can be a constructive member of this community. If he acts constructively, so much the better; otherwise, we can block him in good conscience. As for "this is funny" votes, yes, they aren't helpful, but online cooperative communities are messy by their nature; I don't think you can expect perfection, and the perfect is definitely the enemy of the good. Benwing2 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2, WF already said that nothing will materially change. Multiple folks have sent recent edits here that would lead to any other user being blocked (after being told to stop). Imho they’ve already been given the chance. If they really wanted to be a productive member of the community, with their sockpuppet creating skills, they would’ve made an account and made edits from there with no connection to their prior history. They love the fame, frankly put. The main issue that folks had here was the constant blocking, which could’ve been solved with a more precise vote. There’s nothing stopping another admin from blocking WF again when they inevitably make another disruptive edit as they’ve implied they would. (This doesn’t even get into the issue of global locks which haven’t been addressed properly). As for the issue of comments here, I’m not expecting perfection or anything, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t comment on or try to work towards improving the messiness. (though my patience has run thin) Especially considering that prior votes that actually worked towards improving the overall project have failed due to the slightest of inconsistencies, yet this vote had multiple votes in favor due to essentially vibes and for the fun of it, even praising disruptive edits! Where do the priorities lie? It’s just disappointing. AG202 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202 All I can say is, the status quo was clearly a failure, and I believe this change has at least a possibility of working. And of course I don't mean to imply you can't comment on the imperfections of this project. Benwing2 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would have been preferable to stop the instabanning, but I suspect people must have felt, like I did, that having a formal site-wide vote on "tell user X to stop specific behaviour Y" was too abnormal to even suggest — normally, if a user X is being disruptive in some way Y, we ask them to stop (like multiple admins and bureaucrats did ask for the instabanning to stop), and if the user persists, we remove their ability to continue, whether that's by protecting a page they were editing, blocking them, etc. In this case, the normal way to respond to an admin continuing to use admin tools disruptively would've been to desysop him, and I suspect people must have felt, like I do, that it's preferable to try other approaches before resorting to that! (Unrelated, but re some other comments which have been made throughout this vote: I don't think we should be expecting Wonderfool to edit from specifically the account named User:Wonderfool as a condition of this, if only because how often does someone remember the password for or have access to the e-mail used to create an account he hasn't used in more than a decade? Maybe he does, but I couldn't consider it disqualifying if he doesn't.) - -sche(discuss)01:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche I agree with you that desysopping would have been pretty extreme, but on the other hand they've completely failed to demonstrate that they understand why their behaviour was a problem. The reaction was far more egregious than the original issue, which is a sentiment that has been expressed by quite a lot of people at this point, and it would be nice to see some actual accountability for it. Theknightwho (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad precedent. I find no reason to believe that after 10+ years of skirting Wiktionary's rules, this user will honor the constraints set out in this proposal. Chernorizets (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wonderfool is a troll, not due to the "folly of youth", but because they enjoy trolling. They enjoy upsetting people, not for the sake of the project, but as a sport, feeding their own narcissism. Voting support for this vote is a vote for Wonderfool the user, not a vote for the betterment of the project. --{{victar|talk}}06:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm absolutely convinced that WF likes the chase more than he likes editing, and so the unblocking will do absolutely nothing, since he's just going to once again play some prank and get blocked - even without Koavf's crusade, WF has a track record of sneaking in mistakes and then going nuts once in a few months, then getting banned, create a new account, and resume editing as usual. I don't see any evidence he'll do anything differently given the opportunity. Also, I'm still sulking about diff going unnoticed for six years. Thadh (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though at the very least I probably won't be the one who has to revert definitions like "the act of having forced sex with a broccoli." Hythonia (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Why legitimise unrepentant trolling behaviour stretching back over a decade?" I don't view it as legitimizing rule breaking more than recognizing contributions, which is more important. To me, the rules are there to serve the dictionary-building mission, and if an application of various rules weakens dictionary building, that application is at least suspect. This is not a workplace or a gated community, it's literally a for-fun, volunteer website. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but someone being a scofflaw or getting special treatment definitely makes it less fun. Without dredging up the very recent past, we have had threads on this re: users' abusive behavior and general poor judgement driving away other users. When we have a handful of power users that get to make things working for their benefit, it drives away a number of casual users and actually decreases productivity, as one terminally online power user cannot be as effective as dozens of casual users. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A culture that rewards bad actors drives away "power" users too. I'm apparently one of the most prolific citation-adders, but if problem users are allowed to arbitrarily and unilaterally toss out my work because they personally dislike it and/or personally dislike me, I'm not really interested in investing any more time in this venture. I hope that Wiktionary is satisfied with the cost of its purchase as far as this vote goes. Only time will tell if banking everything on a habitual troll over productive users who have the temerity to occasionally point out systemic issues is a winning strategy. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good contributions from troll accounts are not enough to convince me that the user in question wants to contribute positively to the project. Although I would like this annoying situation to end, I feel that unblocking the user will just exacerbate the situation. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support consistent and unbiased policy enforcement against disruptive editors (especially long-term ones like WF) versus creating a selective policy carveout for the one disruptive user arbitrarily deemed to be a puckish class clown. No other long-term troll has been granted so much goodwill and a decade's worth of chances to clean up their act. WF's modus operandi is to hide nonsense among otherwise solid contributions. In some ways, that's worse than standard drive-by vandalism, since it forces the community to manually sift through countless decent edits in search of the garbage. WF could've mended their ways at any point in the past decade. They could've even quietly come back under a new account and done only good work. In that case I would've agreed that blocking them for socking would've arguably been heavy-handed and counterproductive. But they're still up to their old tricks, as the broccoli diff above shows. Koavf is unquestionably in the right here for enforcing policy as it is actually written over arbitrary unwritten rules. The fact that something as straightforward as blocking a ban-evading troll is being met with such fierce opposition and even hostility only proves that the jester has control of the court. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say what it proves is that this community goes to great lengths in order to retain long-time productive contributors. You're benefiting from this yourself ... we've allowed you to contribute here despite your walling off your talk page to all but admins, because you asked us to. This is against all Wikimedia tradition and a new user would not be afforded this special exemption without a very compelling reason. I'm voting to unblock because I believe Wonderfool has proven himself worthy of a fresh start, even though a strict reading of the policy shows that we could just keep blocking every single new account. Best wishes, —Soap—09:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We've allowed you to contribute here." Well, that doesn't have an ominous ring to it, does it? The difference between WF and me is that I haven't spent the last decade knowingly and intentionally injecting nonsense into mainspace. And I think you've mistaken tying up loose ends for active contribution. How was I to predict that not cutting off my nose to spite my face – i.e. by refusing to create entries for things I'd already attested before asking to have my talk page "walled off" – would be held against me? I'm tired of being put on the defensive every time I speak out on systemic issues. Anyway, it's time for me to peace out. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One of my conditions of support would be that Wonderfool doesn't use sock puppet accounts to manipulate votes. Since he did just that by trying to use a sock account to participate in this very vote, I unfortunately now must oppose. – Guitarmankev1(talk)13:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've found a fair few people's analysis/commentary valuable, in particular that of AG202, Chuck Entz, Equinox, Koavf, Sarilho1, Thadh, and WordyAndNerdy. I don't think Wonderfool's edits are especially valuable or worth fighting to keep. I would say Wonderfool's behavior is overall a problem to be confronted. But unless a process can be implemented that prevents new sockpuppets from being created (which I worry range blocks wouldn't even do), I expect Wonderfool to persist and continue to vandalize. Trying to force Wonderfool to use one account seems a fools errand as once Wonderfool begins vandalizing with that account and gets blocked - even if its just for a day - it seems likely that a new sockpuppet will be born, leaving us back at square one. The "work release" treatment summarized by Chuck Entz seems likely the best we can do to minimize the amount of time and energy sunk into managing the situation. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain If the vote passes, I will support unblocking Wonderfool's original account. If the vote fails, I will support those who block WF's socks at will. I'm not going to cast a vote deciding how that turns out. The only thing I'm going to oppose no matter what are those who want it both ways: Having Wonderfool indefinitely blocked, but allowing block-evading socks and getting mad when our policies against that are enforced. Time for this "special case" nonsense to end! Megathonic (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I really don't know what's better for the project. Many of these comments ignore either his trolling or his positive contributions. Ultimateria (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comments might be, but I don't think anyone here does (as in, no one truly ignores either). It appears to be difference in approach: some seem to think that the positive contributions excuse the occasional idiocy, some — that we can afford to be picky with who we allow to contribute. Hythonia (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain and comment: the main vibe of the vote is "let's end special cases". This is still a special case and we should discuss if it sets precedent. I don't think this has been thought all the way through. Vininn126 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing the consequences of such an unbanning - it would be unprecedent to unban such a user, and what kind of precedent would we be setting? Vininn126 (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My 2p: some users have expressed concern about special cases, but ultimately the circumstances are special regardless and any precedent set by passing this vote could only be taken as applying to cases that are equally special. WF has, after all, received special treatment in some form for the better part of two decades now and the precedent notionally set by that does not in practice seem to have spilled over to anyone else. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WF has skills, notably the creation of sockpuppets, but his hallmark comments soon betray him. It is better to give him a chance, and have him out in the open. We would still have to monitor his contributions though, and revert on sight any silliness. Maybe a period of probation wouldn't go amiss. DonnanZ (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: leaning oppose but both support and oppose voters make decent and compelling arguments. I wish to note though that I doubt this would set any major precedent as Wonderfool is a special and very unique case. (Also, imagine how funny it would be if half of the support votes and even oppose votes turned out to be Wonderfool socks). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this. But the incoming link doesnt work ... i think you need to type out "Wiktionary" twice, once for the project and once for the namespace. —Soap—14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf This information should be moved to User talk:Wonderfool at the very least. It is, in my honest opinion, highly inappropriate to have a Wiktionary page dedicated to them. If they’re now a regular normal user, then treat them as such. Nowhere in this vote did it say we need to maintain such a page. There is also no need to mention a count of any sort. AG202 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the count. The information is also stored on another wiki, so if any admin wants to delete this or convert it into a category in the style of those under w:en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, then that's fine by me. I retained it because some users claimed that it's helpful for monitoring these sockpuppets. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a category would work in this case. On Wikipedia those users are blocked so they can't edit, so the categories are stable. Here we have WF who is no longer blocked. What if he edits and removes himself from the category? There wouldn't a single page to watchlist and it would make it easy for one of the accounts to escape our notice. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WF's original account has now been globally unlocked, although this may be a purely symbolic gesture, as WF recalls having scrambled the password at some point. Some of WF's other sock accounts are globally locked too, but I note that global locks apply to the account, not the person, so there is no issue from a global perspective if WF continues editing under some other account(s) of his choice (noting point 3 of the vote). This, that and the other (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there is no way off the staircase"scrambled the password"-- General inquiry, is there no recourse for an account if the password is "scrambled"? Like, if I got hacked and then the password was scrambled, would there be no way to come back from that? An account on an internet website is not a booby trap in an ancient Egyptian pharoah's tomb, can't you just call the cyberpolice hotline to reset password? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done in theory, but it would require time from WMF staff, who have better things to do than confirm someone's identity (this is the tough part actually) and reset their password, especially in a situation where the account holder does not have advanced rights AND is known to freely create accounts to suit their whim. In WF's case the confirmation of identity is probably not possible to the standard that would be demanded. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other so what did the vote accomplish? As of my last check from a minute ago, User:Wonderfool's last edit is from 2010, and the sockpuppets subpage indicates they've created several accounts since the vote passed. I'm not an admin, so this is mostly a question for those of you who are - was this the envisioned end result? Chernorizets (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I'm being pinged specifically with respect to this question, or why only the views of admins are relevant, but since you're asking me, it's more or less what I foresaw when I noticed this vote had been created. In my mind there was little danger of WF returning to his Wonderfool account again.
I would add that these accounts are not technically sockpuppets, since WF is not trying to avoid a block, nor is he pretending to be someone else. But I'll probably keep thinking of them as "socks" for nostalgia's sake. This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It’s been a long time since WF did anything drastically destructive like deleting the main page and it’s a headache trying to work out who he’s posting as when his accounts keep getting blocked. WF also does some good work (such as recently adding long lists of derived terms to various entries). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Bad precedent. I find no reason to believe that after 10+ years of skirting Wiktionary's rules, this user will honor the constraints set out in this proposal. Chernorizets (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Abstain I'm undecided. PUC – 12:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
