Wikipedia talk:Clean start

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clean start page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1

WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account.

It seems to me that what you might call "pending sanctions" should be addressed. If you stop editing under a cloud, and you make a clean start (and anyone notices), then the typical reaction is outrage. I think we might want to copy

's notion of limiting this to users in good standing. My reason for this is to make the written policy line up with the community's actual practice, and thereby prevent people from getting smacked for having believed that there were no landmines here.

Perhaps a mention of discussions at RFC/U or AN that ended because you announced your retirement? I don't think that we want people to assume that any old talk-page warning counted for this purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is the responsibility of whoever would place those sanctions to do so, if they are to count that way. If they simply abandon their efforts, then someone who leaves pending sanctions might have been sanctioned, might not have been, and I would say innocent until proven guilty. As we saw in the Ash case, the attempt to claim "a cloud" existed after the fact turned out to be an effective persecution tactic, but it was also an extremely divisive one, more lynching than policy in my opinion. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the policy forbids a clean start only to those users who are currently under sanctions. Should this be extended to all users who have been previously sanctioned? Or to some previously sanctioned users in certain circumstances? Should ArbCom have the authority to deny a clean start if in the opinion of the Committee that the clean start would not be in the interest of the community? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense Arbcom can already do this, Cleanstart is not available to anyone under an active block or sanction, so if Arbcom wants to sanction an individual by denying them the right to cleanstart they can do so. Otherwise this is a similar proposal to WhatamIdoing's one before. An Active Ban or block is a high bright line. How do you operate a lower bright line without it being as low as any warning? There is also the issue that we judge the failure of Cleanstart by its failures as the successes are by definition invisible. I don't know whether the failures are a small minority or a clear majority of the clean start scenarios, and I doubt that anyone else can know that either. My suspicion or concern is that the Cleanstart problems are closely associated with RFA or at least contentious areas such as policy discussions and AFDs. The last time we had an Arb vet the prior account of an RFA candidate the result was not entirely a happy one, and I say that as one who supported that RFA and don't regret that support. I'm not convinced that the community would buy a repeat scenario. Perhaps one solution would be to say that Cleanstart candidates are not allowed to run an RFA until at least two years after the last edit of their prior account, and not allowed to participate in AFDs and RFAs until at least 3 months after the last edit by their prior account. That would not inconvenience goodfaith editors who were happy to edit in mainspace. It would mean that anyone considering a Cleanstart as a route to adminship should realise that they would take longer to make admin than if they stayed with their current account. ϢereSpielChequers 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, an alternate bright line could well be "a previously community- or arbcom-imposed sanction", which seems much more in line to me with what the community expects. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you including ones that have lapsed or ended? If so I can see the logic, but consider that a statute of limitations should apply. My preference as I said before is for a ban on Cleanstart candidates running at RFA within two years of their last edit under their previous account. If instead we tell people that they can't start the cleanstart process until x months after their sanction has ended then I'm not sure we are being realistic as to what cleanstart is for. I see cleanstart as a way to give editors a break from a situation that they find difficult, and if we can persuade them to keep editing under their old account but discontinue the problematic behaviour then we should do so. But we should remember that life is complex, we can't neatly divide cleanstart candidates into those with privacy concerns and those with a chequered editing career that they want to put behind them, some as we well know fall into both camps. My view is that the message of cleanstart should be, serve out any outstanding blocks or sanctions, avoid that which caused problems, but before running a fresh RFA then you need to edit uncontentiously for longer than if you had continued with your old account but turned over a new leaf. If you consider the RFA that had such toxic repercussions, IMHO it was the subsequent revelation that the old account was more recent than we had thought at the time of the RFA that tipped things over the edge. We knew at the time of the RFA that the previous account was problematic, and we didn't know there were also privacy concerns, in my view that case could have been better handled if the extant rule had been don't run until 24 months after your previous accounts final edit. But the cleanstart itself wasn't really the issue - as he'd refoccussed his editing almost no-one would have minded if he'd continued editing in areas removed from the problematic one. ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started a Criteria section which clarifies the situation as regards the current wording within the policy. What is needed now is something to fill in the area between the two extremes outlined. We don't need to have a firm rule for each situation between the two extremes, but outlining some kind of procedure and/or common practice would be useful - such as: "Users who have been previously community or ArbCom sanctioned must apply to AN or ArbCom for consensus on having a clean start, and in all cases must inform ArbCom of their new account. Users who were blocked for 24 hours five years ago for 3RR may be allowed a clean start, while users who were blocked within 12 months for abusing multiple accounts may be denied a clean start." And how about: "Any user may be denied a clean start if in the opinion of the Arbitration Committee the clean start would not be in the interest of the community." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy with the idea that cleanstart candidates need to go to Arbcom if they run an RFA within x months of the final edit of their former account. I'm also fine with the idea that Arbcom can sanction specific editors by not allowing them a future Cleanstart. I'm not happy with changing cleanstart to require that anyone who invokes it first has to inform Arbcom. Even if Arbcom didn't have a somewhat leaky history, this seems counterintuitive and sets a trap for editors. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No this is a dumb idea, (added: see below) there is way too much pain on Wikipedia over old slights and it's been getting worse over time. If someone is a long term problem then they may need a long term ban. Otherwise I even suggested on Elen of the Road's talk page that all blocks automatically be erased from the person's block log 6 months after the unblock, if the person hasn't been re-blocked in the intervening interval. Think of all the bullshit that would have (maybe) prevented with Giano, Malleus, etc. Again in the case where someone causes serial problems significant enough over long periods that new incidents trigger institutional memories (and diffs pointing to old discussions etc.) then fine. Otherwise, if the memories are faded enough that it's water under the bridge, then forgiving and forgetting is the best for everyone concerned. The proposed cleanstart change is in the wrong direction.

  What I would say about cleanstart is that someone shouldn't be allowed to just abandon an account and switch to a new one right away. They should have to stop editing from the old account at least a month before beginning to use the new one. If someone is mired in enough drama to want an identity change, then taking a break from editing is probably healthy for them anyway. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re above: the above comments are directed at the broader form of the proposal. To clarify: it's fine if arbcom denies someone a clean start based on careful consideration that doing so is in the project's best interest in the specific situation. As per Werespielchequers, it's a sanction in its own right, that arbcom can already do. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and no. Yes to allowing ArbCom to forbid people if they believe it to be in the best interests of the community to not allow someone a clean start. No to a blanket ban on clean starts for previously sanctioned users. Ideally, people would realise they have made mistakes, and a clean start is just that: a way for them to start again. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we need to be very careful. If we ignore the concept of "serial restarters" for the moment, then we are faced with two facts:
  1. Anyone who takes it into their head to restart can almost certainly do it regardless of the rules, provided they can avoid their previous conflicts.
  2. We are better off having someone constructively editing than being involved in conflict, or not editing at all.

Therefore it seems to me that the policy as written is good, as far as it goes, and indeed I would consider loosening it somewhat.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• I agree with Rich Farmbrough, policy here should reflect reality. If an editor successfully pulls off a clean start, we will at most notice they are not a new editor, but should have no idea what their previous account was. The only way the proposed change would work would either to be to conduct checkusers on all such accounts to see who they previously were, or to smack them with an extra stick later if their clean start ends up failing. Unless we amend checkuser practice to allow checks of such accounts, this policy would only end up being punitive rather then preventative. (We may seriously want to consider such a change to checkuser practice, but this doesn't seem like the place for such a discussion) Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not big on the entire concept of Clean Start, personally. In my ideal world, every person wishing to edit at WP would have to do real name registration and would have one WP-name with one "WP-name-alt" and multiple "WP-name-bot" accounts allowed. The WP name could be changed as desired, but all subsequent names should be centrally and permanently linked. We do not need to be losing problematic editors into the hubbub, we need to keep track of them. Additionally, it's about time for us to realize that IP editing is useful only to vandals, trolls, and banned editors. Very little good has ever come of IP editing and the amount of time sunk each month into fixing the vandalism and terrible editing by IP accounts boggles the mind. Within the context of the current proposal, I support it as far as it goes — maximum limitations upon Clean Start are fine with me. Name changes to turn over a new leaf are also fine with me, but that information should be linked. Happy 2013 to all. — Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA /// Carrite (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might like Citizendium better than Wikipedia, since it follows the types of policies you want. Most people apparently don't, however.[1] 67.119.3.248 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you trying to prove my point about trolling, or what? Carrite (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • See also this about IP contributions. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There can't be a definite policy regarding this as context, not a rigid maxim, is key. Certain situations should result in the granting of a clean start, while others should never; Arbcom should be the final arbiter (fittingly enough) in such matters, and should base decisions on examinations of the relevant editing history and other circumstances.
  TALK 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If you make Arbcom the final arbiter of cleanstarts then how would you do that without requiring anyone considering a cleanstart to first apply to Arbcom? That might work for contentious editors, but it wouldn't work for editors ditching their old account due to privacy concerns; And it is those editors who we want to feel most comfortable using Cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm generally uncomfortable with the concept of notifying Arbcom of a clean start. The whole point of a clean start is that no one knows who you are, and a banned editor is, indeed, able to return and achieve the good graces of the community if he successfully puts behind him all the behaviours that got him in trouble the first time around. I know that I have played whack-a-mole with several sockpuppeteers that apparently vanished. If they actually left, fine. If they have so successfully mended their ways that I cannot detect them any more, also fine. If Arbcom wants to accept clean start requests from blocked and banned users, I think that they also have a responsibility to monitor the editors and block them if they return to any behaviour that caused the original sanction. Clean start is supposed to be a clean start, not a fresh bite at the apple.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea of clean start is just to take on board the lessons of experience, and use them to stay out of conflict going forward. Vanishing below the threshold of detectability is different and much harder. You'd have to quit most every topic you were previously active in, even if you weren't in any controversies in those topics, diminishing the contributions you can make if you were knowledgeable in those areas. That shouldn't be expected of clean starters. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely the majority of clean starts are to people whom have had sanctions? Besides, where's the cut-off? You can't have a clean start for having a 24 hour block for breaking
  WP:3RR a couple of years previously? Or if you've been accidentally blocked, then unblocked? (that's still a sanction, after all.) I'd say that the current setup for this is probably best - CheckUser can always find someone who is misbehaving after they return, unless their style completely changes, after all. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would say that this may be a reasonable guide:
    1. An overturned sanction (such as an acidental block, as mentioned by Lukeno94) shouldn;t count against you;
    2. A user must wait an appropriate amount of time given the overall duration of the sanctions (a single 3RR block would probably require waiting a fw days, but many of them may require several months)
    3. Certain issues (such as sockpuppetry) may mean that you can't gp for a clean start regardless of the time since the end of the sanctions.
    4. A user who went for a clean start may have restrictions for RFAing; and all ARBCOM candidates must declare all their previous accounts, even if they've CLEANSTARTed.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What Rich Farmbrough said. ARBCOM has all the authority it needs, and banning anyone ever sanctioned for anything from ever doing a clean start a) defeats the purpose of clean start and b) guarantees nothing but an increase in sockpuppetry. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If the user actually follows the clean start procedure and manages to avoid causing the same types of problems that led to them previously being sanctioned I fail to see what harm there is in it. if they don't manage to do that they won't have actually made a clean start at all, so I can't say I,support this idea at all.
  talk) 05:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've got a point to make about those who think everyone should use their real names. I would rather not use my real name for all and sundry to see on something as globally visible as Wikipedia - and I know for a fact that there are people I know in real life, or people who know of me, who would constantly go through and destroy the work I've done (my surname is not a common one, so I would be easily found). Besides, my pseudonym has my first name, Luke, in it. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Just looking at the proposal, and not reading any of the discussion above, I am presently of the view that to eternally block a potential editor due to past discressions is a bit much. We are not talking about punishment for a serious crime such as murder, rape, assault and battery, etc. We are talking about editting wikipedia; if someone has returned and wants to positively contribute to the project I will keep with
  WP:AGF and give the editor the benifit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Any non-constructive contributions can be reverted, and is an easy enough thing to do. Therefore, I 'oppose this proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose We've seen this community's propensity for witchhunts. This will encourage more of them.
  Wha? 04:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strongly oppose - I would like a clean-start, but have been illegitimately disallowed one by Arbcom because I have only recently been unbanned. From my position it is clear that giving me a cleanstart would be beneficial to Wikipedia, as I would be more comfortable editing under a different account, and none of my edits since being unbanned have been disruptive. The proposed solution is problematic because it treats users under no sanctions as if they are still being sanctioned. Simone 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unnecessary. Once sanctions have expired, they've expired. The existing policy already addresses issues like returning to previous editing topics, scrutinized topics, RFA, and the like. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What, you'd have them wear a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives? If this proposal were instituted, sanctions would never truly expire. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't object to a brief time limit like "If your old account was blocked, then you can't do a clean start until at least three months after that block expired". I don't like the idea of reaching back to five-year-old blocks, or even one-year-old blocks, especially since a few blocks were rather dubiously placed. (Even 99% accuracy in blocking leaves a lot of room for errors.) What we don't want is someone getting blocked a lot and then saying, "This escalating blocking stuff is inconvenient, so I'll 'clean start' and pretend I'm new, so that they'll go back to nice warnings and very short blocks." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Exponentially escalating blocks are a disease, as are sanctions that demand that editors identified as problematic suddenly become perfect WikiAngels. We should always recognize that an editor who has worked on Wikipedia in such a way as to not be completely and permanently banned is an asset; therefore, he should never be inferior to a fresh edit. I smell the same cult of youth bullshit here that tells corporations to avoid experienced workers in favor of someone out of college they think has a "bright future" (until he fouls it up). We should allow any editor to cleanstart, and if that undermines the exponential disease, that is not a bug but a feature. There are enough places in the world where people start off all young and full of hope, only to learn that every wrong word, every careless divulgence is another permanent brand made upon them until society tells them that for all they've learned and done they are completely useless and ought to go off somewhere and blow their brains out. Wikipedia doesn't have to be yet another one of these places - free of worldly matters like any salary for our editors, we can choose adopt the video-gamer's fantasy that people level up, not down. Where adminship is concerned, my feeling is that it would be acceptable to require cleanstarted editors to wait a year - provided we also ask other new editors to wait a year. Why not? Do we have a shortage of Wikipedians who have been here that long? But it would make more sense to make up a sort of checklist, a "course", of Wikipedia functions that a person should accomplish, and those seeking adminship should go through and prove competence at each of these functions, and once the course is completed, however long that takes, then they can go for it. Part of the course should be to effectively mediate difficult disputes. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I

]

I reverted this edit. If it is a summary of the other sections, it lacks some nuances. If it repeated them precisely, it would be unnecessary. The two items in that section refer to changing username and oversighting private information. Really, this is more a "see also" section. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed up with another edit, [2], which converts this whole section into an About note. To keep that note concise I removed a few details about the alternate processes (i.e. that changing username reattributes deleted contributions) - these are explained at the target articles and don't seem needed here. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sandeepa sm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.113.34 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: "If you want to become an administrator without revealing your former account, it is best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check your former account" may need to be clarified. I noticed it was added by you here. The part I have trouble with understanding is "best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check". Is this recommending they wait an indeterminate amount of time before requesting adminship or that they should not request for adminship at all? This was added quite a while ago. I don't know if the act of waiting or letting a large amount of time go by necessarily eases the controversy that occurs when the original account of a cleanstart is revealed (and the editor also happens to be an admin). Mkdw^talk 04:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkdw, this is a tricky one, and our perceptions are inevitably skewed by times when things have gone wrong whilst we may be blissfully ignorant of many times when they have gone right. I have no idea whether there are any or lots of admins who originally did a cleanstart. There is a mismatch between our policy of cleanstart and some people's expectations at RFA. I'm an occasional nominator and I encourage my candidates to make a statement about former accounts, a quick trawl through recent RFAs shows a wide variance on this and at least one recent admin who wasn't asked if they had previous accounts (it isn't a standard question). I like to think that the community wouldn't give two hoots about the former account of an obstreperous adolescent who returned in their twenties. As the project gets older so the gaps between current and former accounts will widen and my expectation is that the longer the gap the less we will care. As for people who have walked away from their first account due to doxxing or harassment, I would hope we would be as supportive as the Cleanstart policy intends. Of course one of the issues here is that cleanstart can mean anything from someone driven from a real name account by trolling to a troll who came close to being blocked before "retiring".

In an ideal world we would subdivide cleanstart into victims and villains and treat them differently, but too many villains think of themselves as victims for that to work well. ϢereSpielChequers 06:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement of that sentiment. I was mostly asking because I was having a little trouble understanding what the wording was meaning, but now that you mention these other points it seems that this section could use some revisions and clarity on this issue. Mkdw^talk 20:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity would be good, but may be difficult. It was certainly beyond me. My fear is that there may be no happy ground between those who when they think of cleanstarters first think of an innocent victim of doxxing and harassment, those who first think of someone who retired just in time to avoid a community ban and those who want policy to be simple and brief. ϢereSpielChequers 21:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that sentence should be removed. It appears mostly to be advice which might be better served in an essay than in a policy. Mkdw^talk 00:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out that sentence would leave the last sentence in that section as "Becoming an administrator without admitting that you had a previous account risks losing the confidence of the community if the former account is subsequently revealed." Which is also advice rather than policy, and I fear if you remove "If you want to become an administrator without revealing your former account, it is best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check your former account." The section would still contain advice but that advice would be less helpful to someone who had undergone Cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think "it is best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check your former account" needs to be corrected because grammatically it makes no sense as it stands now. It's why I was asking what that sentence meant initially. Mkdw^talk 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also have concerns with this sentence. I agree with the comment above that its wording is unclear. More seriously, it strikes me as being bad advice - encouraging editors with more than one account to delay a RfA to reduce the chance that other editors will make a connection isn't in line with the high standards admins are expected to uphold. From memory, there have been fairly recent cases where admins and arbitrators have been revealed to have had long-abandoned previous accounts which has led to them being widely condemned. Surely it's best to either own up publicly, or disclose during a RfA that there had been previous accounts and privately advise ArbCom of their identity. Hiding previous accounts, especially ones with a problematic history which have been abandoned as part of a clean start, is a time bomb for admins and higher, even when their new account has an excellent record. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A genuine clean start is not considered improper. However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors...

This strikes me as very unfair: we should not be punishing an editor who attempts to escape harassment via a clean start. "Negative reputation" is fine: don't repeat past mistakes. But I can think of one editor immediately, and a few more if I think about it, who through no fault of their own have started anew. Of course it is true that the socks they were trying to avoid will sniff them out a mile away, but they know that, and by placing this note in between "improper" and "avoid consequences" we are suggesting they did something wrong, they brought it on themselves. I am going to remove and tweak that phrase. If y'all wish to make this clear (abundantly clear, needlessly extra-clear) somewhere else, you are welcome to. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: even the first paragraph still implies victim blaming: "and to avoid harassment. The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account." Why must an editor stop editing like they were before, if they did nothing wrong? Doesn't this suggest they were asking for it? Drmies (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be viewed as a warning of likely consequences - yes, if you resume what caused other users to harrass you, they are likely to figure out tht it's you again and start. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had always read this to mean: "...that resulted in the user's harassment of others..." Maybe that wasn't a reasonable reading of the intent but perhaps it should be said that way? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy talks about "avoiding harassment" in the second sentence, so I think Drmies' interpretation is probably right. If someone was being harassed, they shouldn't be treated as if they did something disruptive. But, still, going right back to the same old articles and same arguments kind of defeats the purpose of a clean start. Maybe we should give them advice, not rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think NRP is right; this is useful advice but should be presented as only that, not as a rule or requirement. It's true that "advice" in a policy page sort of unavoidably carries the implication of a rule, but I'm actually surprised at how often this advice seems to be necessary to spell out. A lot of people who want to clean-start really underestimate how difficult it is to avoid being identified.

talk) 03:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

We could remove the words about reasons for leaving ("recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment"), and retain the rest. The point is that, whatever the reason for changing names, the new account shouldn't return to old haunts. To do so might violate SOCK and/or would mean the new and old accounts will be linked. SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!!! Doctor Mies, vestal virgin, ocarina of time, I am diligently attempting to employ

Wp: Cleanstart! Help, Arbs!2600:1017:B42C:DD96:C908:F246:35B6:BFAE (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Turning over a new leaf

Does this page mean that it is okay for a person who was formerly disruptive on Wikipedia, commited vandalisms, abused accounts, and harrassed others to create a new account, abandon all his or her old accounts and sockpuppets, and edit in noncontroversal areas? Or is he or she technically a sockpuppet, and, if he or she chooses to confess leater on, must be indefinitly blocked? Is it possible for someone to turn over a new leaf and by approval not let other editors trace him or her back to his or her old accounts, and edit Wikipedia out of a deaire to build an encyclopedia and never again engage in bad behavior? 2600:1:F1A5:D7F2:8959:B3A0:CB08:EA15 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is where formerly disruptive is important. You don't qualify for cleanstart if you are currently blocked. ϢereSpielChequers 17:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a former blocked vandal does not wish to have his old account/s unblocked or globally unlocked but wishes to clean start, what can he do? For example. When he was 13 years old, he spent his time on Wikipedia vandlaizing and has created tons of socks to disrupt Wikipedia and has had all of them indefinately blocked. Now he is 24 and more mature. He wishes to now edit Wikipedia constructivly but he does not want to return to his old vandal account/s nor does he wish to pretend to be soneone else.

THE QUESTION IS: How can he return as a constructive editor on Wikipedia without having to open up old wounds? And if he has at least one globally locked account, can he not edit other wikimedia projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F159:4185:5586:CBF1:68A0:BA7E (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be language discouraging participation in project-space votes (such as

]

Multiple clean starts

Given the current controversy at

]

I don't know if that's the real issue. Multiple clean starts from active users aren't necessarily for trying to evade scrutiny. Maybe they're overly paranoid about privacy or have some other personal reason. What is problematic is creating clean start accounts to try to leave behind the trouble you're already in. Perhaps there should be some kind of restriction on clean start accounts when you've been warned about behavior at a community noticeboard. Natureium (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s why I said generally. I was thinking language such as administrators may take into account previous clean starts when determining if a user was trying to evade scrutiny or something of the sort. Not hard language, but enough to make it clear the FWTH style infinite renames and accounts isn’t what this policy has in mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the kind of person that this situation would apply to would be able to understand anything other than a solid yes or no. Natureium (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but policy is also written for admins and arbs when reviewing situations, and it’d document for those of us who work in the area how to evaluate things. I’m not tied to any specific proposal here, but I do think this should be clarified in some way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more worthwhile change here would be to stipulate that user rights removed on an old account for cause may not be requested on a clean start account without disclosing the old account. That is the largest issue with the clean starts in this case, in my opinion. (This is my opinion as an individual, not on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Rob sez. ∯WBG^converse 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Rob about user rights removed for cause. But are user rights generally removed from users who appear to have retired under a cloud? Merely having been warned about behaviour can also happen through sheer vindictiveness, attempts to redirect attention, and misunderstanding, so who gave the warning and the circumstances would matter too. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very skeptical of the notion that multiple clean starts from active users may not be the editors trying to evade scrutiny. No one should need multiple clean starts. Not typically anyway. The page quite clearly states, "It is expected that the new account will be a true 'fresh start', will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. [...] It is best that you completely avoid articles or topics that you previously edited, especially if you were involved in a dispute with another editor(s). If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s). Likewise, if you want to make a clean start because of harassment from other editors, you should avoid editing articles that may place you in conflict with the same editors, because they will probably recognize you." If the editor keeps getting into a mess that makes them feel like they need a clean start, that editor is likely a problematic editor. The editor certainly should not keep disappearing only to show back up in the same areas, where others might not recognize them; I can't help but see that as avoiding scrutiny.

talk) 01:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no problem with multiple clean starts as long as the clean starts aren't from blocked accounts. There are any number of reasons why an editor would want a clean start. There have been times when other editors were dogging my edits years ago where clean start was a valid alternative from having to go to a talk page to explain every edit. I don't think that we should assume the worst when editors just want to edit articles without being hounded by editors they've disagreed with in the past. I don't think unless you have been hounded you can understand the relief that comes from just being able to edit without constant challenges. It can drive away productive editors and I think that is more of a concern than the few editors coasting through on false premises. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "when editors just want to edit articles without being hounded by editors they've disagreed with in the past" piece, WP:Clean start is clear that they shouldn't be returning to those areas in the first place. I don't think that the policy should be changed in that regard. If they haven't returned to those areas, and are supposedly being hounded yet again, then maybe the problem is that editor. I'm not stating that the editor who perceives they are being hounded is definitely the problem. But unless they are editing a contentious topic over and over again or their user page reveals something about them that a troll or some other type of editor has latched onto and decided to hound them over, I can't see why they would be hounded again and again. If they are being hounded because they are open about their

talk) 02:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think there's a difference between doing it for harassment reasons and doing it after you've already had a clean start, had more renames than is possible to count on the original account, and the original clean start, been threatened to be globally locked by a steward for abusing the rename process and threatened to be blocked locally by multiple admins for it, and have just had an office action taken against you by the Wikimedia Foundation.

In cases such as that, a user shouldn't be able to declare to arbcom that they're creating a new account and go on their merry way. That is what Flooded with them hundreds tried to do here. I agree with the unblock of the main account basically for the reasons GW said at

WT:ACN, but I've honestly never seen a more in your face bad faith attempt at gaming a policy and attempting to deceive the community.

I agree with Rob that the user rights issue is a significant concern, but I also don't really know how these actions can be described as anything but pure deception, which is something I care about from a community trust perspective, and FWTH just proved that it's possible to blatantly game the system currently. I think under current policy here, the unblock with a one account restriction was the right call and was the only fair thing to do, but I think in an ideal policy environment, that unblock wouldn't have happened. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think any change in policy would have prevented the unblock, at the end of the day. The clean start policy was violated, in my opinion, because the clean starts had the effect of evading scrutiny, whether intended or not. Topic areas were returned to and the same user rights requested that had been removed for cause in the past. I weakly supported an unblock with a one account restriction because I considered that restorative. It puts us back into the situation we started with. No user rights, everyone knows the connection between the accounts, etc. Anything more would be strictly punitive. It was a "no longer needed" unblock, from my perspective, not a "this block shouldn't have happened" unblock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clean Start. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Clean Start until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start.

We don't actually mean that, do we? A clean start editor isn't banned for life from all CTOPs... right? The rest of the section talks about "resuming" editing but this part seems to say clean start editors can't edit CTOPs at all even if they never previously edited them.

If it were this way, an Indian editor couldn't do a clean start without giving up the ability to edit all Indian articles, to take one of many examples. That can't be what we mean... right?

Asking because I saw Black Kite's comment about this at AE. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the sock policy: if you clean start after appealing sanctions on one account and then go to a different topic area and start causing similar problems with a new account, that's evasion of scrutiny. Sock policy clearly calls it out as not allowed for clean starts to do that. Though, in general the clean start policy isn't the best written. My general advice to everyone is that the two policies need to be read together to understand what is and isn't allowed since they really do go hand and hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: No, but I think there's a difference between avoiding all CTOPs completely, and practically all of your edits being in CTOP areas, which is the case for the editor in the AE filing. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CTOP areas are CTOP areas because they're the areas most people are most interested in editing... AP2, COVID, etc... if you're Indian, and you edit about where you're from, all your edits will be in CTOP areas. Same for Pakistanis, Afghans, Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and many other places. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to consider CTOP editing as somehow supect or something, even in a new editor, even in a clean start. There's nothing unusual about all of someone's editing being in a CTOP area. Levivich (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right - and the underlying principle of the sock policy is that the community has a right to know if you've caused problems in other areas. Look - I am a clean start account who at one point was a CU/OS and admin and certainly got into my fair share of controversy. The short of the section you're taking issue with is that if someone is acting in a way that ends them up at AE for a warning and they're an admitted clean start account, the assumption is in favour of blocking. If they're a non-disclosed clean start in those circumstances and a CU finds they're someone else, they get blocked basically without question.

If you want the Tony tl;dr of the clean start policy it is this: you can create a new account if you've had problems on your old account or if there are privacy issues, but if there are problems on the new account, the presumption is in favour of blocking. Risker and I are the traditional policy gurus on the functionary team, so pinging her in case she has additional input. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you've not caused problems in your old account, and instead you've been subject to harassment, so you clean start, and then you get taken to AE... the assumption is in favor of blocking, is what you're saying? Levivich (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The policy is clear on that. If someone is disruptive and on a clean start, the presumption is in favour of blocking. If someone is not being disruptive and is taken to AE, we hope that admins are smart enough to apply commonsense. Again, you're arguing with the clean start who arguably went farthest in the not-really-hierarchy of en.wiki — a clean start is a second chance. I used it because I was 11 and an idiot who created an account with my real name. But there's not a 3rd chance if you're being disruptive. That's what this policy and the sock policy are trying to say. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to ask again because I'm still thinking there must be some misunderstanding here.

Let's suppose there's a User:Editor who starts an account and, sure, let's say they're an 11 year old kid who starts an account in their real name. Some time goes by -- they do not get blocked, banned, or in any kind of trouble. This is important I'm going to repeat it: they do not get blocked, banned, or in any kind of trouble.

But they get older, realize they shouldn't edit under their real name, so they CLEANSTART a new account.

You're telling me that for this new clean start account, if they get reported to AE for something, the assumption is to block?

You're telling me this new clean start account is a "2nd chance" and they're not given a 3rd?

Let's take a second example. User:Editor2 -- again no block, ban, or anything else. Editor2 gets called out by some partisan media in the world somewhere -- let's say it's a right wing Indian newspaper who doxes them -- so Editor2 CLEANSTARTs.

Again, you're telling me, that if this new clean start is reported to AE, the assumption is to block? That this clean start is a 2nd chance, and they're not given a 3rd?

And you're saying policy is clear on this?

But more to the point: you're telling me what I've written above makes sense to you, and it's how you think things should be?

Because, you'll understand why I think the above two examples are examples of punishing the innocent who have done nothing wrong? In the first example, punishing a child or being a child, and in the second example, punishing a victim for being a victim.

I must be misunderstanding? Surely, you mean that if someone was sanctioned as their first account, then future misconduct in a cleanstart account will be judged more harshly. But if someone didn't get sanctioned as their first account, then surely they're not on their "2nd chance," and if it were otherwise, we'd be punishing children and harassment victims and all sorts of other people who have reasons for CLENASTART that have nothing to do with being sanctioned? Levivich (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to address any of the hypotheticals, but I'll state the underlying principle clearly for anyone looking through the talk page archive later.

The underlying principle of both the clean start and the sock policy is that an individual's right to create a new account does not change the community's right to scrutinize them if they are being disruptive. If someone is being disruptive, and they decline to disclose what their previous account was, the community or admin imposing the sanction can freely assume that they were similarly disruptive on their old account since there is no way to know otherwise. That's what both are getting at. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me present a hypothetical scenario. An editor in good standing (i.e., not the subject of any formal editing restrictions, blocks, bans or open discussions related to their conduct) decides, for one reason or another, that they want to abandon their account and depart Wikipedia for an indefinite period of time. Perhaps it is because of targeted off-wiki harassment they have been receiving. Maybe they got outed and have serious concerns about their privacy. Maybe they became burnt out or disillusioned at the direction Wikipedia was going in. Whatever the reason, they decide to retire, and they request an indefinite block of their account per

, as they never intend to return to editing or using their account. The block request is granted. Many months or years then go by. The original editor regains an interest in Wikipedia and decides to create a new account. Given that a block (albeit self-requested) is still actively in place against their original account, is this a legitimate clean start?

I've been reading up on different Wikipedia policies and guidelines recently (most relevantly this policy, the

), and this question popped up in my head. I've looked around to see if there have been any other discussions on this specific issue, and I haven't been able to locate anything that explicitly addresses it, either in discussions or mentioned in policy. (If there is something out there that addresses this, I would be happy to be pointed to it.)

By and large, all of these policies seem to give very little leeway to actively blocked users from creating new accounts or performing a legitimate clean start (and for good reason):

A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. (

, emphasis mine.)

Any user who has currently active bans, blocks or other sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed

, may not have a clean start. (This policy page, emphasis mine.)

My thinking would be that self-requested blocks are not considered to be in the same vein as other blocks that are put in place in response to formal wrongdoing on a user's part. Therefore, creating a new account some time after requesting a self-block on an old, abandoned account would be a legitimate clean start, provided the only reason for the original indefinite block was that is was self-requested. However, this is not directly addressed on either the clean start or sockpuppetry pages. A direct, literal reading of the relevant sections of policy would technically prohibit the editor described in the hypothetical from performing a clean start, but I have a feeling this is not the spirit of those policies. Is this view shared by other members of the community? Would it be worth amending these policies to reflect this position? MaterialsPsych (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]